9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,62,07,447/- was reduced by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) to 10% of the said amount. Accordingly, common issue arose in both these appeals whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) is justified in reducing the addition of Rs. 1,62,07,447/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69 and thereby granting relief of Rs. 1,45,85,803/- and sustaining the addition only to the extent of Rs. 16,20,645/-. 3 There is a delay of 4 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed an application/affidavit and prayed for condonation of delay. 4 We have heard the ld AR of the assessee as well as the ld DR and considered the affidavit filed by the assessee on condonation of delay. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 1,62,07,447/- as income from other sources u/s 69 of the I T Act. 5.1 On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) treated the amount deposited in the bank as undisclosed business deposits and thereby directed the Assessing Officer to determine the profit of the assessee @ 10% of the deposits of Rs. 1,62,06,447/-. Hence, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has granted relief of Rs. 1,45,85,803/- and sustained the addition to the extent of Rs. 16,20,645/- 6 Both the assessee and the revenue have challenged the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). The assessee is aggrieved because the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has sustained the addition to the extent of 10% on deposits and addition made by the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce the assessee is an illiterate and doing the business activity of real estate as well as civil contracts; therefore, the profit on the activity should be estimated at 8% as per sec. 44AD. He has further submitted that while income has taken as per sec 44AD, the returned income declared by the assessee should be adjusted. 7.2 The ld DR, on the other hand has submitted that the assessee has failed to produce any evidence to show that the assessee is a civil contractor and therefore, the provisions of sec. 44AD are applicable. The addition u/s 69 has been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of AIR information and the cash deposits were found in the bank account of the assessee. The ld DR has further submitted that receiving the money ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g withdrawal is also there. The Assessing Officer has not taken into consideration the withdrawal made by the assessee for subsequent deposits in the account. Therefore, making addition on the basis of one side of the bank account is not justified without giving the due adjustment of cash withdrawals by the assessee in between. Further, the CIT(A) has recorded that the transaction of Rs.. 80,75,000/- with Shri Sunil Gulati has been confirmed by the party. Further, in respect of the transaction with Shri Sanjay Patel and Shri Prakash Chandran, though the assessee filed the ledger account, copy of PAN of the said person; but did not file the copy of the return of income along with bank account etc.; therefore, the CIT(A) did not accept the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
