TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - I.T.A. No. 2659/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 7-2-2018 - SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Sureshkumar K. N. For The Respondent : Mrs. N. Hemlatha ORDER Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 16.11.2016 and pertains to the assessment year 2011- 12. 2. The grounds of appeal read as under: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned assessing officer has erred in levying a tax of ₹ 10,52,010/- on assessed income at ₹ 30,97,265/- by adding cash deposits of ₹ 23,95,265/- against declared income at ₹ 7,01,910/- by the Assessee. 2. In the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presents the unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act and the balance of ₹ 23,95,265/- minus ₹ 19,40,000/- i.e. ₹ 4,55,265/- was also treated to be unexplained. In all the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹ 23,95,265/- on this account. 4. Upon the assessee s appeal, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) observed that further during the appellate proceedings the assessee was directed to produce his books of account and cash book but the assessee did not have the same ready with him. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that the assessee had not maintained any Ledger of the parties from whom he received consultancy payments. That no bill books are maintained. That in the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and hence this claim of the assessee cannot be accepted as such. 4.5 The assessee has also claimed that deposits totaling ₹ 12,65,041/- had been received by him as unsecured loans from his wife Ms Sharada Shaikh (Rs.6,31,500/-), from one Shri Hamid Shaikh (Rs.1,00,000/-) and from one Shri Farukh Shaikh (Rs.5,33,500/-). These amounts are not received in one go but there are several entries clubbed together by the assessee to arrive at the consolidated figure of unsecured loans as claimed above. The assessee was directed to produce the bank statement of the loan creditors and their Income Tax particulars. The assessee claimed that Ms Sharada Shaikh is also an Income Tax Consultant and she is filing her return of income separately. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion for the same. As a result the claim of assessee that the unsecured loans are explained or that the explanation is satisfactory is not borne out Moreso because the assessee did not produce his books of accounts. It is also relevant to note that the assessee claims to charge a substantial amount from his clients for book writing (as per a bland list given) but apparently the assessee never wrote his own books of account even though it is alluded to in the assessment order. 4.6 The assessee has also claimed that that there were certain deposit by cheque which were dishonoured on subsequent dates and to that extent no addition should have been made in his case. The details of the dishonoured cheques were given as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee has not made any other submission which can be verified from the limited documents on file, the other additions are confirmed. As a result of the above, the addition of ₹ 23,95,265/- made by the AO is reduced by a sum of ₹ 5,92,425/- and the remaining addition of ₹ 18,02,840/- is confirmed. In a modification to the order of the assessing officer, the addition is confirmed under section 69A of the Act instead of under section 68 of the Act. 5. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 6. I have heard both the counsel and perused the records. I find that addition in this case has been made on the basis of information received regarding deposits in assessee's bank account. Asseessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
