TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Authorized Representative of the assessee that while making the deposits in the bank, the assessee had utilized the withdrawals made on earlier occasions. Therefore, we find no good reason to interfere with the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 165/PNJ/2015 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2015 - SHRI N.S. SAINI, HON BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : Shri Ashok G. Mudnur CA. Department By : Smt. Smriti Bhardwaj - DR O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Belagavi, dated 25/03/2015. 2. The sole issue involved in thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business in steel. He observed that if the claim of the assessee was true, then the assessee would have maintained books of accounts and got the same audited under sec.44AB. Further, all payments for purchases as per assessee s version made in cash and, therefore, there was violation of sec. 40A(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer accepted the claim of the assessee that he was carrying on retail business in steel without any documentary evidence and without any record of purchase or sales being furnished by the assessee. According to Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, the methodology of peak credit is to be adopted where it is accepted that there is a turnover and existence of which the assessee has to prove for working out the peak cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer under sec. 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2010-11 on 20/12/2012 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer after due verification of cash deposits and application of mind had passed the assessment order. He relied on the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 282 and in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83 wherein it was held that if two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
