9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Even Before us, the assessee has not filed any details in respect of payments received from Sri Tadi Tada Rao from whom assessee purchased the car nor filed any details of third party to whom car was sold. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, find no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Credits in the bank account as representing receipts from sand business - Held that:- The assessee has not furnished any information regarding bank credits. During the course of appellate proceedings also, no information was given with regard to deposits in the bank account, accordingly, he upheld the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Before me, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer on estimate basis is without any basis, however, the assessee has not filed any material to explain the source of credits in the bank account to the tune of ₹ 50,30,160/-. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, I find that Assessing Officer has justified in estimating the income of the assessee and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t investment made by the assessee was ₹ 30,000/-, but the Assessing Officer took it as income earned and submitted that addition may be deleted. However, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) he has not submitted any details. Keeping in view of the business carried-out by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was of the opinion that estimation of income of ₹ 30,000/- from the sand business is reasonable. Accordingly, confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Even before me, assessee was not able to substantiate any evidence that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is on higher side. In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed. 4. The second ground of appeal relates to unexplained investment in purchase of TATA Safari Car. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted from the impounded documents that the assessee has purchased a car from Sri Tadi Tada Rao for a consideration of ₹6,48,000/-. The assessee in his own stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are holding and towards the first instalment, an amount of ₹ 3,87,500/- was invested during the year. The Assessing Officer also enquired with Sri Nallamilli Ramachandra Reddy, who confirmed such an investment. He also deposed that assessee earned income of ₹ 2 lakhs from sand business as the assessee had the advantage of own lorries. Based on the deposition of assessee and also Sri Nallamilli Ramachandra Reddy, the Assessing Officer assessed an amount of ₹ 3,87,500/- towards investment in sand business and ₹ 2 lakhs income earned from the sand business during the year. 7. On appeal, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) restricted the addition to ₹ 1,50,000/-. Before me, the assessee was not able to point out that the addition confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is on higher side. Learned counsel for the assessee simple submitted that no basis for addition. I find that the assessee has invested an amount of ₹ 3,87,500/- and he has also own lorries to carry out the business, hence, it is reasonable to estimate the income of the assessee finally at ₹ 1,50,000/- is fair and just. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o deposed that the assessee s share was to the tune of 40% and the remaining shares held by Goluguri Muni Reddy and others. The Assessing Officer also noted substantial credits in the assessee s bank account to the tune of ₹ 50,30,160/- and the same was considered as receipts from sand business and with reference to which the Assessing Officer estimated the assessee s income at 8% amounting to ₹ 4,02,413/-. With regard to investment of ₹ 4,37,500/- in the sand business, the Assessing Officer did not make separate addition as he has allowed telescoping with reference to earlier year income. 12. Before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it was contended that the Assessing Officer was not justified in taking the credits in the bank account as representing receipts from sand business. It was argued that the assessee has deposed that his income from sand business was ₹ 2 lakhs and without considering the same, the Assessing Officer had estimated the income at 8% of credits in bank account. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after considering the explanation of the assessee, observed that from perusal of the assessment order, it is seen that several op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d No.5 relating to addition towards unexplained investment in land to the tune of ₹ 4,12,665/-. In the assessment order the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has purchased 300.57 sq.yds. of plot on 20/12/2004 for a consideration of ₹ 3,70,000/- in the name of his son Shri Medapati Bala Balaji, who is a student aged about 19 years without any source of income. The assessee in his deposition dated 23/12/2008 stated that the investment was made by the assessee out of his business income. As the source for investment was not explained, the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹ 4,12,655/- which included expenses towards stamp duty and registration charges. 16. On appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it was submitted that assessee s son Shri Medapati Bala Balaji is on the rolls of ITO, Ward-2, Amalapuram, however, no evidence was filed to substantiate the source of investment and also return of income filed by his son. In this view of the matter, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Even before me, no material is filed to substantiate that the assessee s son is having source of income to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the authorities below are not correct. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that no interference is required in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed. 19. Ground No.4 relating to income from operation of Ex-210 to the tune of ₹ 6,69,314/-. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted from the impounded material and deposition of the assessee that the assessee had earned ₹ 15,03,600/- from Ex-210 machine during the year. After considering the assessee s claim for depreciation and interest payment, the Assessing Officer brought to tax net income of ₹ 7,69,314/- as against which the assessee had offered income of ₹1lakh and the difference of ₹ 6,69,314/- was subjected to assessment. 20 On appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee has not pointed out any mistake and no material is filed to substantiate that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not correct. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Even before me also, neither pointe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
