TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only. There is no material on record before the A.O. that apart from the aforementioned Bank A/c, the assessee is having any other Bank A/c. therefore, find merit in the arguments advanced by Assessee that when all business transactions i.e., purchases and sales etc., are routed through the only Bank A/c maintained with ICICI Bank Limited and since in the subsequent assessment year the A.O. himself has accepted that the S.B. A/c of the assessee is used for his business transactions and since the assessee has opted for presumptive taxation under section 44AF lower authorities are not justified in sustaining the addition as unexplained cash deposit in the Bank - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA. No. 5402/Del./2018 - - - Dated:- 30-9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee. He noted that the peak credit in the Bank A/c is ₹ 7,27,846/-. After excluding the income declared by the assessee in response to notice under section 148 at ₹ 1,56,000/- as explained, the A.O. made an addition of ₹ 5,71,846/- to the total income of the assessee being the difference. Thus, the A.O. determined the total income of the assessee at ₹ 7,27,846/-. 3.1. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings. It was explained that the case of the assessee is covered under section 44AF of the I.T. Act, 1961 and, therefore, income can be estimated @ 5% of the gros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I.T. Act. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) could not appreciate appellant s return of income showing a net income of ₹ 1,56,000/- disclosing all material facts necessary for his assessment. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in endorsing the observations of the Ld. A.O. as mentioned in his assessment order and making assessment u/s 148/143(3) without ascertaining the facts of the case as a whole. 6. That the observations of the Ld. A.O. and its endorsement by the Ld. CIT(A) for making the addition of ₹ 5,71,846/- as alleged peak balance in bank account alleging it as undisclosed capital are inconsistent both factually and legally. That the Ld. CIT(A) could not appreciate the fact that the appellant has been filing his return o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of section 44AF of the I.T. Act, 1961 and is not required to maintain any books of account. He accordingly submitted that the addition made by the A.O. and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) should be deleted. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 7. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. I find the A.O. in the instant case has reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the ground that assessee has made cash deposit of ₹ 16,10,500/- in the Bank A/c maintained with ICICI Bank Limited. After considering the returned income of ₹ 1,56,000/- as explained out of peak deposit of ₹ 7,21,846 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the A.O. that he is having only one S.B. A/c maintained with ICICI Bank Limited vide A/c. No.097501501410 and has no Current A/c for maintaining business transactions and all his sales and purchases have been routed through his S.B. A/c only. There is no material on record before the A.O. that apart from the aforementioned Bank A/c, the assessee is having any other Bank A/c. I, therefore, find merit in the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that when all business transactions i.e., purchases and sales etc., are routed through the only Bank A/c maintained with ICICI Bank Limited and since in the subsequent assessment year the A.O. himself has accepted that the S.B. A/c of the assessee is used for his business tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
