9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellant is registered businessman and they filed his return regularly. 3. For that learned assessing officer taking figure from bank and charge general rate 8% where as the appellant has not run as contract business so that the assessment order of the assessing officer is not correct or as per law. 4. For that the LAO pick up all the transaction deposit and withdrawal there is no evidence from the transaction represent sale. 5. For that without prejudice to above, the estimate of income @ 8% of the deposit is wrong, illegal, unjustified and beyond the law. 6. For that the LAO added amounting to Rs. 8,01,210/- as capital is wrong, it is simple transaction. 7. For that the LAO without passing any order and they charged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee at Rs. 18,06,570/- as under: "Income from business has been determined at Rs. 10,05,360/- presuming all the deposits in bank accounts as sales for want of evidence to substantiate the credits. Net profit rate @ 8% has been estimated on resumed sales as provided u/s 44AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer has deducted Rs. 1,52,177/- as business income shown by the appellant in the original return. The addition of Rs. 8,53,183/- after deducting the income shown has been made to the returned income. Further, addition of Rs. 8,01,210/- has been made as undisclosed circulating capital in absence of evidence of filing of the returns of income of previous years to substantite the running capital." 4. Being aggrieved by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions is not sale/purchase. Therefore, AO was not justified in treating total deposits of Rs. 1,25,67,000/- as gross turnover of the business and the same is found to be unsustainable. Hence, addition made by AO on this ground is deleted. As a result, this ground of appeal is allowed. 3.1 The second issue is regarding addition of Rs. 8,01,210/- on account of peak credit, being undisclosed circulating capital in bank accounts of the appellant- assessee. On this issue, the appellant filed submission. I have gone through contentions of the appellant and the facts of the case. I find AO's action to be correct. However, the appellant-assessee might have had some accumulated past savings in hands. No credit for the same has been given by AO. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
