9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isputed the fact of borrowals of Rs.5 lakhs made from Mr. Rajeev Aurangabadkar on 12-12-2008. Similarly, assessee's explanation with regard to total deposits of Rs.1,44,500/- on different dates as mentioned in CIT (A)'s order also cannot be rejected considering the nexus between the deposits and the income and also the fact that the assessee had shown income of Rs.2,61,250/- and agricultural income of Rs.72,630/- which has not been disputed by the AO. Thus no infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) in deleting the additions made by the AO as the assessee has satisfactorily explained the source of such deposits. Assessment of income - AO contested against CIT (A)'s direction to determine the net profit at the rate of 5% of the purchases an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresentative and perused the material on record in the light of the impugned order of the CIT (A). We find that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the consistent view taken by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in similar matters wherein the Tribunal has held that income of the assessee in this particular line of business of liquor has to be estimated at 5% on purchase of stock put for sale. In fact, relying upon one of such order passed by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Amaravati Wine Shop (ITA No.1196/Hyd/2011 dated 8-6-2012), the CIT (A) has directed the Assessing Officer to determine the net profit at the rate of 5% of stock put for sale during the year. Since the impugned order of the CIT (A) is in co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t out of the total cash deposit of Rs.21,34,500/- in his bank account, he had taken loan of Rs.10 lakhs from Sri P. Nageswara Rao for his personal purpose to help his aunt for her surgery. Due to unavoidable circumstances, the surgery was postponed and the same was deposited in the bank in the form of cash. The assessee again in the month of May, 2008 withdrew an amount of Rs.4,91,500/- for his personal purpose and again re-deposited in the bank in the form of cash in August, 2008. The assessee further explained that he was owning some land at Gandamguda and willing to start some construction activity and took a loan of Rs.5 lakhs, from Mr. Rajeev Aurangabadkar in December, 2008. He withdrew Rs.4 laths from his account for this purpose and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Sri P. Nageswara Rao. It is seen from the entries in the bank account and the assessee 's explanation that the repayment has taken place subsequently, i.e., on 27-8-2008 and on 11-9-2008. Before this, the assessee had made a self withdrawal; of Rs.4,91,500 on 31-5-2008. However, as per the assessee, this amount was eventually not utilised and was re-deposited on the dates mentioned above. The Assessing Officer has ignored this withdrawal of Rs.4,91,500 in his order without giving any justification. I find that the assessee's explanation is reasonable and deserves acceptance. 4.2. The second group of deposits consists of the following:- Date Amount 29-1-2009 Rs.1,00,000 18-3-2009 Rs.4,00,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ablish the nexus between the deposits and the income. The fact remains that the assessee had returned an income of Rs.2,61,250/- and agricultural income of Rs.72,630/- which has been accepted by the Assessing Officer in his order. These amounts, which reflect the net income of the assessee, would themselves be sufficient to explain the deposits of Rs.1,44,500/-. It would also be safe and logical to presume that the deposits were made out of the gross receipts of the assessee which naturally would be more than the returned (and net) income. The explanation of the assessee is, therefore, accepted as reasonable. 5. We have heard submissions of the parties and perused the material on record. Out of the total cash deposit of Rs.21,34,500/- in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmity in the order of the CIT (A) in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer as the assessee has satisfactorily explained the source of such deposits. In aforesaid view of the matter, we confirm the order of the CIT (A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the department. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the department stands dismissed. ITA No. 241 of 2013 This appeal by the department is directed against the order dated 1-11-2012 of CIT (A)-VI, Hyderabad passed in appeal No.0484/11-12/CIT(A)-VI pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10. x. The sole grievance of the revenue in the present appeal is with regard to the direction of the CIT (A) to the Assessing Officer to determine the net profit at the rate of 5% of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
