Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (1) TMI 862

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssee, we agree that only the income should be brought to tax and not the credits in the bank account. Considering the transactions in the bank account, there are receipts as well as payments taken place, hence, it can be treated as business transactions and only the net profit alone can be brought to tax as held in various decisions of the Courts. Accordingly, we direct the AO to estimate the profit on the gross receipts @ 8% or the profit %age as declared by the assessee in his own business for the AY under consideration, whichever is higher. Accordingly, the grounds raised in this regard by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 875/Hyd/2014 - - - Dated:- 13-1-2017 - SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , during previous year relevant to the assessment under consideration aggregating to ₹ 1,32,56,500/- into his S.B accounts with ING Vysa Bank - ₹ 98,12,000/- and ICICI Bank ₹ 34,44,500/-. However neither the assessee nor his AR chose to comply with the notices and to explain the sources for the said cash deposits. Also it was specifically mentioned in the above notices that (i) the assessee should file the information as called for therein, (ii) in the event of non-compliance from the assessee the assessee would lose opportunity to file the same subsequently before any appellate authority and also the assessment would be finalized ex-parte, under sec. 144 of the Act. 4. The assessee's failure to comply with the n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r withdrawals were signed by the assessee and no details of the sources with respect to the relative have been provided. Why is it that the assessee allowed this relative to clandestinely use his bank account whereas the relative who is supposed to have a legally valid PAN could have easily opened his bank account anywhere. CIT(A) noted that when a query posed to assessee; whether the entire transactions had been disclosed by the so-called relative in his income tax returns, the assessee could not provide any reply. 5.2 In view of the above observations, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO by holding as under: 4.13 It is clear from above that the amounts in question were unaccounted and belongs to the appellant who only .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals) ought to have accepted that the deposits were made by one Shri S. Venkateswara Rao and utilized the bank account for his purposes and therefore, the deposits made do not relate to the appellant. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals) ought to have seen that Shri S. Venkateswara Rao, through his affidavit confirmed the fact and the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals) ignored the important evidence which shows that the deposits made do not belong to the appellant. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals) ought to have seen that the appellant explained the sources for the deposits made into the above mentioned two bank accounts and ought to have held that the de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erial evidence, but, the assessee did not comply, therefore, the CIT(A) has rejected the additional evidence submitted before him. Ld. DR placed reliance on the order of the CIT(A). 9. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material facts on record. The assessee has brought on record the additional evidence after a lapse of 2 years. The additional evidence submitted before us could have been submitted before the AO to substantiate his claim, so that the department could have initiated proper proceeding in the case of Sri. S. Venkateswara Rao. At this juncture, we find inappropriate to consider the additional evidence filed by the assessee before us and, accordingly, we reject the additional evidence filed by the assessee. 9 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates