9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.11,86,626/- made on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act as the assessee failed to prove the source of such deposits in his bank account whereas the assessee is in cross objection which is in support of the impugned order. 2. During hearing of this appeal, learned Senior DR, Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sked to explain the source of such cash deposits which was claimed to be out of sale proceeds of retail business. Being unsatisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the impugned amounts were added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) was satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and deleted the addition. The aggrieved Revenue is in appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appellant stating that no documentary evidences have been filed. On perusal of this bank account, it is seen that the cash has been deposited at the interval of 3 to 4 days and the amount deposited also varied between Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 22,000/-. It appears that the Assessing Officer has simply disbelieved the contention of the appellant in as much as the appellant has affected cash sales an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , therefore, as per the provisions of section 44AF of the Act, the assessee is not expected to maintain books of accounts. The assessee disclosed income of Rs.76,235/- in his return. The impugned amounts were found to be deposited out of the sale proceeds of retail business where the total turnover/sales are to the tune of Rs.13,91,425/-. What documentary evidence can be produced by the assessee f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
