9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - Dated:- 2-2-2017 - Shri H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member Assessee by : Sh. Hari Om Bhati, CA Department by : Sh. S. K. Jain, SR. DR ORDER The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the impugned Order dated 15.4.2014 of Ld. CIT(A), Faridabad pertaining to assessment year 2009-10. The ground raised in the Assessee s appeal reads as under:- 1. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Faridabad is bad in law and on facts. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstancse of the case the appellant denies his liability to be assessed u/s. 144 and consequently to pay tax thereon. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstance of the case the Ld. CIT(A) Faridabad erred in : A) Rejecting the claim of the appellant for s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted. But again the same was not complied with. Thereafter, AO observed that assessee is doing some business the detail of which are not available on record. AO noticed that it is an unaudited case and gross receipts / sales during the year was not shown only declaring business gain of ₹ 2,65,360 and filed his return as traders. AO observed that from the return it is not verifiable whether books of accounts has been maintained or not. In view of the above, information/ documents obtained from the bank and after examination of the same, assessment of the income of the assessee was made. The AO noticed that assessee has deposited ₹ 23,90,000/- in cash in his bank account. The assessee was by questionnaire issued on 31.1.2011 fixing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d additional evidence under Rule 46A, which was forwarded to AO for examination, both with regard to the admissibility of additional evidence and the merit of addition made in the light of additional evidence, submitted by the assessee. AO s report has been reproduced in the CIT(A) s order, after considering which ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of ₹ 38,36,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account, rejecting the assessee s surrender of peak credit balance of ₹ 7,60,894/- before AO in remand proceedings, inter alia, observing that on one hand the AO had recommended rejection of additional evidence and has conclusively tried to establish the fact that source of cash deposit could not be satisfactorily expl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 26.6.2016 in the case of Hansraj vs. ITO, Faridabad passed in ITA No. 1139/Del/2014 (AY 2009-10) as under:- 5. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have perused the record of the case . It is not disputed that assesse was doing the business of cattle feeds. In the statement of facts, filed before ld. CIT(A), the assessee had pointed out that it was in the business of retail trading of cattle feeds e.g. peddy, khal, choori, chilka, gud, jawar and barsam etc. and assessed with ITO, Ward 11(3), Faridabad. Return of income had been filed u/s 44AF, by declaring business income of ₹ 2,18,040/- and turnover of ₹ 30,25,200/-. It was also submitted in the statement of facts that the assessee deposited the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
