TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing an individual, is eligible for claim on presumptive taxation u/s.44AD of the Act. Assessing Officer has gone into the sundry creditors which are appearing in his accounts but there is no such condition provided in the provisions of Section 44AD of the Act and the CIT(A) has rightly held that, even the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act does not apply, as there is no cessation of liability. In view of the above, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. Assessee has also interest income received from fixed deposits made in the Bank for ₹ 2,09,084/- and this cannot be covered under presumptive taxation. Revenue has pointed out from the Assessee s accounts that it has made fixed deposits at Electricity Department, Bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at no addition u/s.28 to 43C can be made when the Assessee has filed return of income u/s.44AD of the Act, which is factually not correct. 2.2. The learned CIT(A) erred in taking business income at ₹ 4,98,560/- instead of ₹ 2,89,476/- because interest income of ₹ 2,09,084/- must be excluded from ₹ 4,98,560/- to arrive at business income and business income of ₹ 2,89,476/- in only 4.75% of gross receipts of ₹ 60,87,980/- and therefore the return of income filed is not u/s.44AD of the Act. 2.3. The learned CIT(A) erred in concluding that the Assessee filed return of income u/s.44AD of the Act when the return filed by the Assessee shows otherwise and income from eligible business returned by Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clared income at ₹ 4,98,560/-. The Assessing Officer selected the case for scrutiny through Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection [CASS] and issued notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, there are sundry creditors amounting to ₹ 2,25,13,545/- and accordingly enquiries were conducted and these creditors were not traceable. Therefore, the Assessing Officer added the trade creditors amounting to ₹ 2,24,73,708/- to the retuned income of the Assessee. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) after going through the facts of the case, deleted the addition by observing as under: (xvii) In view of the above detailed discussions, it is held that the sum of ₹ 2,24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved, the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and had gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the Assessee has offered its income in the return of income in a presumptive basis u/s.44AD of the Act. Admittedly, the Assessee s trading turnover is to the extent of ₹ 60,87,980/-. The Assessee has declared profit on the same at ₹ 4,98,560/-, i.e. net profit and had paid taxes on the same. The Assessee has fulfilled all the conditions provided u/s.44AD of the Act, as the Assessee has got his accounts audited and that the Assessee is in retail trade. Further, the Assessee has not claimed any deduction. The Assessee, being an individual, is eligible for claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
