9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material has been brought on record by the revenue to show why the withdrawals made from the same bank account could not have been available with assessee for making subsequent deposits in the bank account. In above facts, in our considered view, adoption of entire aggregate deposits during the year of ₹ 37.75 lakhs as income, by ignoring the withdrawals, was not justified. We find that the peak deposits in the said bank was ₹ 12,31,169.88 on 17.1.2008. Further, the frequency of deposit and withdrawal indicates that the assessee was carrying on certain undisclosed deposits. Therefore, it would be reasonable to estimate the said business income, and also to treat the same as business income of the assessee. We, therefore, es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee is dismissed. 4. In the ground no.2 to 8 of the appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 37.75 lakhs made by the AO on account of deposits made in undisclosed bank account with Prime Coop. Bank Ltd. (PCBL) without allowing set off of loss of ₹ 56,99,495/- made in purchase of sale of shares and future option. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the AO observed that it was known through AIR information that the assessee held a bank account with PCBL, Main Branch, Khatodra, Surat bearing bank account no.10011001005255, wherein the assessee had deposited cash totaling to ₹ 37.75 lakhs during the year under consideration. In the return of income filed, the detai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dded ₹ 37.75 lakhs as deemed income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. 7. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action for the same reasons. 8. Before us, the AR of the assessee submitted that out of the income determined under section 69A of the Act, the loss suffered by the assessee in the business of shares and future options should be allowed deduction to the assessee, and for this, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shilpa Dyeing Printing Mills P. Ltd., (2013) 39 taxmann.com 3 (Guj) wherein it was held that the Act does not envisage taxing of any income under the head not specified in section 14 of the Act. Where an undisclosed income was determined under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see. The AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee, because, the assessee failed to produce any material or evidence before him, and added ₹ 37.75 lakhs as deemed income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. 11. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the same. 12. Before us, the AR of the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities, and the DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 13. We find that the AR failed to furnish any evidence in support of source of deposits made in the said bank account as well as failed to furnish any evidence to show that the assessee was actually carrying on some business in shares and future options, in which, it suffered any loss. Therefore, in our vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
