9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakhs but were wrongly mentioned as ₹ 9 lakhs in the income tax return. The details of the purchases and copy of VAT return were withheld by the assessee on the excuse that same were not available. The AO got the copy of the VAT return from the Sales Tax Office in which the sales were mentioned amounting to ₹ 9,65,170/-. Before the AO the stand taken was that the appellant was not maintaining books of account, on the other hand with the VAT return, the appellant had filed Trading and Profit & Loss Account and the balance sheet. The appellant had withheld the material information available with him. All the three authorities below have recorded consistent findings of facts. The appellant has not been able to dispute the findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in his saving account with Centurian Bank of Punjab Ltd., (now HDFC) Calibre Mkt., Rajpura The case was selected for scrutiny. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 02.09.2009. The detailed questionaire dated 29.03.2010 was also issued. The assessee in the income tax return declared that his case is No Account Case , and showed gross receipts of ₹ 9 lakhs and net profit of ₹ 1,20,000/-. 4. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee contended that his sales were of ₹ 29 lakhs whereas it was inadvertently declared as ₹ 9 lakhs in the return. It was contended that the assessee was not maintaining any books of account. The Assessing Officer (AO) asked for details of purchases and sales and the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Aggrieved of the assessment made, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patiala (for brevity, '(CIT(A)'). Appeal was dismissed vide order dated 29.10.2013. Further, appeal was filed before the Tribunal, which was also dismissed vide order dated 01.12.2016. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in upholding the addition of ₹ 26,68,525/- under Section 69A of the Act. He submitted that the assessee was able to explain the source of cash deposits. It was contended that AO erred in not appreciating the figures of purchases as per the VAT return as ₹ 13,12,607/-, being coupled with the value of closing stock at ₹ 11,5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
