9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that only peak credit is to be taxed, hence, we hold that only peak credit appearing in the respective bank account of the assessee can be brought to tax as there is rotation of the same funds. Hence, we set aside the issue of computation of peak credit to the file of Assessing Officer for bringing the same to tax. - Decided partly in fvaour of assessee for statical purposes. - ITA NO. 497/DEL/2011 - - - Dated:- 14-3-2014 - SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY AND SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JJ. For The Appellant by: Shri Arun Kumar Jain For The Respondent by : Shri Sameer Sharma, Sr. DR ORDER PER CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(A), Rohtak dated 03.12.2010 in ITA No. 336/RTK/2009-10 for AY 2007-08. 2. Ground no. 1 and 4 of the assesse are general in nature which need no adjudication and we dismiss the same. Remaining grounds of the assessee read as under:- 2. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) has erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of ₹ 17,63,318/- representing deposits in Bank accounts, to the income of the appellant. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit entries of ₹ 26,55,690 for both the banks, the Assessing Officer accepted the explanation of the assessee pertaining to ₹ 2,92,372 and the balance amount of ₹ 17,63,318 was brought to tax as unexplained deposits in the bank account. 5. Being aggrieved by the above action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) which was also dismissed with following observations and findings:- 4. I have considered the issue and the submissions made by the AR. No books of account have been produced before the AO. The appellant did not furnish the basis of estimating the net profit at ₹ 99,000/-alongwith the gross receipts, expenses etc. during the assessment proceedings. Merely by contending that no books of a/ c have been maintained; the appellant can not escape in furnishing the details of receipts, expenses and the basis on which the net profit has been arrived at. Therefore, the AO came to the right conclusion that the appellant had failed to furnish complete details of his business. It would be worth while to note that the appellant has not disclosed any bank a/ c in spite of specific query by the AO. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bank a/c of ₹ 17,63,318/- is upheld and the ground of appeal is dismissed. 6. Now, the empty handed assessee is again in the second appeal before this Tribunal with the main ground as reproduced hereinabove. Ground No.2 7. Apropos ground no.2, ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer grossly erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of ₹ 17,63,318/- representing deposits in Bank accounts of the assessee. The counsel of the assessee also submitted that the authorities below ignored cash flow statement, agreement to sell dated 13.04.2006 executed by the assessee in favour of Mr. Anand Singh and registered sale deed dated 8.4.2008 and other supportive documents and evidence submitted by the assessee. 8. The AR also contended that the assessee is a property dealer who has to receive and pay various amounts on behalf of his clients i.e. purchaser and seller of the properties, therefore, if for the sake of security, the amount received is kept in the bank account for some time and subsequently it was withdrawn and given to the intended persons or sellers on behalf of the purchasers of the property, then t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer. In the first appeal, this addition was confirmed and upheld by the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 11. The assessee has only made an attempt to justify deposit of ₹ 7 lakh with the submission that this amount was received from Shri Anand Singh with whom the assessee entered not an agreement of sale of land and Shri Anand Singh paid him ₹ 7 lakh in cash in advance. As per this agreement dated 13.4.2006 plot no. 444, sector 2, Rohtak was sold for a consideration of ₹ 10 lakh and the assessee received ₹ 7 lakh in cash at the time of execution of sale agreement. On perusal of sale deed dated 8.4.2008, we clearly observe that the said plot no. 444 was sold to Smt. Sarla Devi w/o Shri Kuldeep Singh only for an amount of ₹ 6,63,000 after two years of execution of agreement to sell. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the sale deed was executed as per the prevailing circle rate and has been shown on lower side as insisted by the purchaser. These circumstances are not acceptable even by a man of ordinary prudence because an agreed amount of ₹ 10 lakh would be reduced to ₹ 6,63,000 after a lapse of two years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
