9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-19, New Delhi, Dated 30.11.2018, for the A.Y. 2010-2011, challenging the addition of Rs. 15,86,000/- on account of income from unexplained sources under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that in this case information for non-filing of ITR for the A.Y. 2010-11 was received through NMS cycle. On perusal of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 15,86,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit in Bank Account under section 68 of the I.T. Act. 2.1. The addition was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee submitted that he was running general store shop and cash deposit in the bank account was from sales made. The assessee has no other income. The cash has been deposited in the Bank Account regularly in 2-3 days gap. The Ld. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. D.R. submitted that assessee did not produce any evidence before the authorities below that assessee was doing any business and cash have been deposited out of sale proceeds. No copy of the purchase bills have been produced by assessee before any authority. Therefore, addition may be confirmed. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and do not find any justification to interfere with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsaction of assessee. However, assessee did not produce any evidence before the authorities below. Same is the position before the Tribunal that assessee did not produce any purchase bills to show that purchases were made through banking channel out of the same Bank account in which cash have been deposited. Therefore, there were no justification even to remand the matter back to the file of A.O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
