9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to the appellant, the present appeal raises the following substantial questions of law: - "1. Whether under the facts & circumstances of the case, the 'presumptive charge' of income u/s 44AF is distinguishable from arriving at 'chargeable income' u/s 29 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the decision of the Tribunal is against the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT vs. Surinder Pal Anand (2010) 48 DTR 135 (P&H) and hence violative of judicial discipline?" The relevant facts which need to be noticed for adjudicating upon the present appeal are that the assessee is in the business of retail trading of wooden furniture and operates in the name and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ______________________________________________________ Value Date Post Date Details Chq Debit No. Credit Balance BROUGHT FORWARD 0.00 16.06.07 16.06.07 DMINTA 000 DJ 30.06.07 30.06.07 BY INTT 1,817.00 1,05,618.00 Cr 13.08.07 13.08.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 1,55,118.00 Cr 14.08.07 14.08.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 2,04,618.00 Cr 16.08.07 16.08.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 2,54,118.00 Cr 17.08.07 17.08.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 3,03,618.00 Cr 18.08.07 18.08.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 3,53,118.00 Cr 20.08.07 20.08.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 4,02,618.00 Cr 22.08.07 22.08.07 BY CASH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 15,90,618.00 Cr 28.11.07 28.11.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 16,40,118.00 Cr 01.12.07 01.12.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 16,89,618.00 Cr 03.12.07 03.12.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 17,39,118.00 Cr 04.12.07 04.12.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 17,88,618.00 Cr CARRIED FORWARD 17,88,618.00 Cr BROUGHT FORWARD 17,88,618.00 Cr 06.12.07 06.12.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 18,38,118.00 Cr 07.12.07 07.12.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 18,87,618.00 Cr 08.12.07 08.12.07 BY CASH 49,500.00 19,37,118.00 Cr 31.12.07 31.12.07 BY INTT 15,275.00 19,52,393.00 Cr 02.02.08 02.02.08 TO SELF 1,50,000.00 18,02,393.00 Cr Paid to SEL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings. The assessee had raised a ground that the assessing officer had not recorded any reasons but the Commissioner found the same to be duly recorded. The Commissioner further held that the assessee declared his income under Section 44AF of the Act and, thus, was not required to maintain books of accounts and explain each entry. After relying upon a judgment of this Court in CIT vs. Surinder Pal Anand (2010) 48 DTR 135 (P&H), the Commissioner allowed the assessee's appeal and ordered deletion of the amount of Rs. 18,31,500/- as ordered to be added to his income by the assessing officer. The order of the Commissioner led to the filing of the crossappeals before the Tribunal. After considering the record and the orders passed by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is was also considered and rejected as no evidence of making any purchases on credit had been filed by him before any of the authorities. The assessee was also found to have established no nexus with the receipts/turn over and the deposited cash in his bank account. Link evidence to show that the sales were directly related to the cash deposits made by him in his bank account, was also found missing by the Tribunal. In view of the afore-referred facts, the Tribunal held that the assessee's case was distinguishable from Surinder Pal Anand's case (supra). Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue was allowed and the addition made by the assessing officer was restored. After going through the order of the Tribunal, we find that the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
