9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturns, have not disclosed gross sales of ₹ 29 lacs. No evidence was filed before the authorities below in support of any of the explanation, therefore, source of the cash deposited in the bank account remained unexplained. Even before me, no evidence of any source of bank deposit has been furnished. In the absence of any evidence or material on record to explain the cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee - Decided against assessee. Addition on account of lesser closing stock declared in income tax return as against declared in VAT return which is arbitrary & unjustified - Held that:- The assessee did not submit any evidence before authorities below therefore, addition of ₹ 4,30,000/- was made. The assessee did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the addition of ₹ 26,68,525/- under section 69A of the Act on account of cash deposits in the bank account in utter disregard of the explanation rendered during the course of assessment proceedings which is arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not accepting the sales at ₹ 29,00,000/- made by the assessee only on the basis of the VAT return wherein lesser sales had been declared in utter disregard of the factual position which is arbitrary and unjustified. 5. The facts of the case are that the assessee declared income of ₹ 1,40,000/- on estimate basis inclusive of ₹ 1,20,000/- as estimated income f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee tried to explain the source of deposit from withdrawals from account at ₹ 5,54,900/-, and advances from parties at ₹ 1,57,700/-. However, no evidence in support of the same were filed during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the A.O. rejected this part of the explanation. In the cash flow statement, the assessee has further shown increase in creditors at ₹ 30,000/-, addition of income of ₹ 1,40,000/- and depreciation of ₹ 500/-. The A.O. held that none of these heads actually generates any cashflow and, therefore, can't be considered as an explanation for source of the deposit made in the bank. The assessee has further shown unsecured loan of ₹ 1,40,000/-. In this connection, in p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Assessing Officer. No evidence was submitted with regard to sales or purchases made. The assessee made cash deposit of ₹ 37,73,695/- in his SB account, however, assessee failed to explain any source of such deposit in the bank account. Whatever contention was raised by assessee, were found to be false and fabricated. The claim of the assessee of estimated sales of ₹ 29 lacs was not supported by any evidence or material on record. The assessee in the IT Return and in the VAT returns, have not disclosed gross sales of ₹ 29 lacs. No evidence was filed before the authorities below in support of any of the explanation, therefore, source of the cash deposited in the bank account remained unexplained. Even before me, no ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out any error in the orders of authorities below, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders of authorities below. This ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 10. Ground No. 5 reads as under: That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the addition of ₹ 80,000/- on account of alleged lesser labour job declared which is arbitrary unjustified. 11. The facts of the case are that the assessee has shown estimated income from labour job at ₹ 20,000/- in the return of income whereas the same is declared at ₹ 1 lac in the VAT return. The Assessing Officer, therefore, added ₹ 80,000/- to the returned income on account of undisclosed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
