2014 (1) TMI 977 - AT - Income Tax

Undisclosed cash deposit in bank account - Held that - The amount deposited was received from purchasers/buyers located at various places like Mumbai, Thane, Hyderabad, Kanpur etc - The assessee also explained that he was supplying marble on commission basis - The Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the total deposits in the bank account of the assessee as his undisclosed income - The Ld. CIT(A) rightly worked out the income by applying the net profit rate on the total receipts relating to the business of the assessee - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Treatment of undisclosed cash deposit in bank account as turnover and application of net profit rate.
2. Deletion of addition under the head income from other sources without documentary evidence.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Treatment of undisclosed cash deposit in bank account as turnover and application of net profit rate
The appeal was filed by the department against the order of the ld. CIT (A) regarding the treatment of undisclosed cash deposit in the bank account as turnover. The Assessing Officer had observed that the assessee had deposited a significant amount in the bank account without disclosing the source. The assessee claimed that the cash deposits were related to marble trading activities. The ld. CIT (A) opined that the total cash deposits could not be considered as income and applied a net profit rate to determine the addition. The net addition was sustained at Rs. 12,245 based on the declared income and turnover. The tribunal upheld the ld. CIT (A)'s decision, stating that the Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the total deposits as undisclosed income. The tribunal agreed with the application of the net profit rate and upheld the addition.

Issue 2: Deletion of addition under the head income from other sources without documentary evidence
The second issue pertained to the deletion of an addition of Rs. 10,000 made by the Assessing Officer under the head income from other sources. The ld. CIT (A) observed that the addition was made without any adverse material on record and was merely an estimate. Therefore, the ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition. The department appealed against this deletion, arguing that the assessee failed to explain the source of the cash deposit. However, the tribunal upheld the ld. CIT (A)'s decision, stating that the Assessing Officer did not provide substantial evidence to support the addition. The tribunal found no valid ground to interfere with the ld. CIT (A)'s findings and dismissed the appeal of the department.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the ld. CIT (A)'s decision on both issues, emphasizing the importance of providing proper justification for additions made during assessment proceedings and the application of net profit rate in determining undisclosed income.