9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants were not produced any books of accounts before the A.O. but submitted copy of the purchase and sale register – Decided against the Assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opportunity was given to all the assessee. The appellants submitted replies vide various dates. The appellants' replies were considered by the ld. A.O. Before the A.O., the appellants claimed that the cash deposited in the bank account which pertained to year 08-09 and same were deposited in the bank, which were generated from the trade business. They gave the name and address of the various parties. The ld. A.O. issued summon to all six parties from whom they had claimed that purchases were made but only one out of six suppliers attended office against the summon issued u/s. 131 of the IT Act. The A.O. held as in case of Dilipkumar V. Thakkar as under: "i. The assessee failed to submit confirmation from his HUF and not proved creditworthiness of his HUF, who was given loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to him also given loan installment of Rs.5,04,000/-. ii. The contents regarding deposit made in BOB of Rs.1418650/- is found correct, because at the time issuing letter the amount of F.Y. 2009-10 was also included in the total amount of Rs.3298860/-. iii. During the year the assessee was purchase immovable property, and made payment from bank accounts. It is pertinent to note that the befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim of the assessee sale of saree and dress materials is not reliable." The A.O. made addition of Rs.7,09,227/- under the head 'undisclosed income' determined on the basis of peak balance and gross profit after peak balance at Rs. 15,956/-. The finding in case of Smt. Binita K. Thakkar is as under: "i. The assessee has received loan from three persons Mr. Dilipbhai Thakkar- Rs.100000/-, Mr. Bharat Thakkar- Rs. 50,000/- and Mr. Bharat Vasantlal Thakkar(HUF)- Rs.125000/-. But it was found, after verification of the account details of all three persons (lender), that they had deposited cash of Rs.365000/- in their bank accounts before issuing the cheque to the assessee. Therefore, it is clear that the cash deposited by the said lenders was brought from their undisclosed sources. ii. During the year the assessee was purchase immovable property, and made payment from bank accounts. It is pertinent to note that the before issuing the cheque to the land owner the assessee as well other co-owner of the land first deposited cash in their bank accounts and then issued cheque to land owner. It is proved that the assessee was rotating his undisclosed fund/money through unverifiable sale a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer's action of rejection of appellant's claim u/s 44AF is upheld. Since there is no way to ascertain the nature of deposits, the assessing officer 's action of making the addition of the peak of cash and cheque amounts together is also upheld." The similar finding was also given in case of Smt. Chandrika D. Kumar Thakkar and Smt. Binita K. Thakkar. 4. Now the assessees are before us. Ld. Counsel for the appellants filed paper book and claimed that the assessees are individual and are in retail trading business of sarees and dress materials since many years. Shri Dilipkumar V. Thakkar filed return @ 6.81% on the total income of Rs.2,39,970/- on the total turn over of Rs. 32,98,660/- under the presumptive tax scheme u/s. 44AF of the Act, in case of Smt. Chandrika D. Kumar Thakkar, total income of Rs. 2,42,910/- @ 10.40% on the total turnover of Rs.23,34,660/- and in case of Smt. Binita K. Thakkar, total income of Rs.2,41,670/- @ 12.08% on the total turnover of Rs. 19,99,630/-. The appellants had purchased immovable property alongwith other co-owners. He further argued that the ld. A.O. issued summon u/s. 131 to six parties. Shri Nagraj Jain had confirmed the transactio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
