TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 872X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained cash deposit by cheque - A.R. stated that these deposits were the business receipts but no evidence was furnished with regard to the source of deposits as well as expenditure incurred in connection with the earning of this money. Therefore it is established that the cheque deposits were from unexplained sources and the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and the same is upheld. In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed. Estimation of income @ 5% - A.O. has rejected the books of accounts and estimated the income - Held that:- A.R. did not make out a case for estimation of income @ 4% with relevant evidences except arguing that earl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2010-11, the A.O. found that the assessee had undisclosed bank account in Indian Bank, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam with account No.713957051 and made cash deposits in the bank account to the tune of ₹ 10.00 lakhs for which the assessee explained the source as advances received for sale of land. The assessee stated that a sum of ₹ 5 lakhs was received from Sri K. Venkata Ganesh and K. Gouri Devi as per the agreement dated 21.1.2010 and further sum of ₹ 5 lakhs from Sri A. Venkata Rao and A. Padmavathi vide agreement dated 3.2.2010. In respect of K. Venkata Ganesh, the agreement was dated 21.1.2010 and stamp paper was purchased on 28.10.2009 which leads to suspicion with regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the tune of ₹ 10 lakhs noted in his bank account, which was not disclosed to the Department. The assessee had raised a plea that it represented advance from sale of property. But the inquiry made by the AO clearly reveal that such a claim was not genuine. It is also relevant to note that the alleged parties who have purportedly made the impugned advances were related parties, and they did not have creditworthiness to make the advance. The lack of financial capacity of these parties clearly give an indication that the alleged sale agreements were only a make-believe arrangement to explain away the source for the impugned deposits. No explanation was given as to why the advance received on sale of property already disclosed was deposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly shows an indication that the sale agreements were only make believe arrangements. Since the assessee failed to furnish the evidence to establish the genuineness of the advance, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and the same is upheld. Ground No.1.1 of the assessee s appeal on this issue is dismissed. 6. Ground No.1.2 is related to the cash deposit of ₹ 19,30,950/- by cheque. The assessee has made cheque deposits of ₹ 19,30,930/- in the Indian Bank of Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam which is not disclosed to the department. The aggregate cheque deposits made in the bank account were ₹ 26,80,476/- out of which ₹ 7,49,506/- was held to be the receipts from Orissa Stevedores which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal proceedings that they were business receipts was not substantiated and hence rejected. 7. During the appeal hearing before us, the Ld. A.R. stated that these deposits were the business receipts but no evidence was furnished with regard to the source of deposits as well as expenditure incurred in connection with the earning of this money.Therefore it is established that the cheque deposits were from unexplained sources and the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and the same is upheld. In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed. 8. Ground No.1.3 is related to the estimation of income @ 5%. The Ld. A.R. argued during the appeal hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ablished that the assessee had agreed for estimation of income @ 5% before the A.O. Both the A.O. and Ld. CIT(A) have estimated the income @ 5% after careful consideration of the net profit of earlier years and considering the fact that the assessee failed to produce the books of accounts. The A.O. has rejected the books of accounts and estimated the income. The Ld. A.R. did not make out a case for estimation of income @ 4% with relevant evidences except arguing that earlier percentage of income required to be adopted. We are unable to consider the request of the assessee to reduce the estimation of income without placing the material to substantiate that the estimation of profit @5% was unreasonable. Therefore, we uphold the order of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
