9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot disputed by the AO or the CIT(A) and has shown net profit @ 10% which is much higher than the minimum of 5% as has been provided under the statute." 4. Ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has erred in resorting to weightage average method when the assessee has shown gross receipts from retail trading as turnover and on the basis of such turnover, the authorities below have estimated @ 10% of the turnover, which is higher than the minimum of 5% as has been provided under the provisions of the Act. Ld counsel submitted that the assessee has shown income as per provisions of section 44AF of the Income tax At (in short 'the Act') in which she is required to maintain the books of account which is the only requirement to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whose turnover is less than Rs. 40 lakhs during the previous year. 7. In the present case, the assessee filed her return of income showing total income of Rs. 3,45,312/- as income from business and professions without any further addition. However, the AO made an addition of Rs. 5,02,307/- by observing that during the course of survey u/s.133A of the Act, a stock of silver ornament was found in the business premises of M/s. Parbati Jewellers, a proprietor firm of the assessee. From the relevant assessment as well as first appellate order, I find that the authorities below have not show caused the assessee before making the addition on this count. Further, undisputedly, for the relevant assessment year, the appellant has disclosed total gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tock cannot be made in the hands of the assessee especially when the assessee herself is showing higher percentage of net profit on the turnover undertaken during the relevant financial period. Accordingly, Ground No.B is allowed. 8. Ground No.C reads as under: " For that the ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition on account of unexplained investment to the tune of Rs. 17,76,662/- on the flimsy ground that the appellant could not produce any evidence before the CIT(A) to justified the source of such income, when the appellant in the written submission had in fact deliberated in detail regarding the source of the same." 9. Ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs. 17,76,662/- on acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch forms a substantial source for investment. Ld counsel further submitted that on 27.7.2005, the assessee had sold a property at Badahat, Kendrapara to one Manoj Kuma Sahoo for an amount of Rs. 2,78,000/-, out of which amount, a part has been flowing in the credit of the assessee. Thus, this is also another resource for enabling the assessee for making the impugned investments. Copy of sale deed is also on record as Annexure-3. Ld counsel further submitted that the AO has referred to an amount of Rs. 3,26,832/- paid to Bajaj Allianz. As perusal of the relevant bank statement reveals that this amount was received of the assessee for her bank account on 27.4.2009 and on the same day that exact amount was paid to another party through ICICI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and obviously in the natural course of practice all movable and immovable property has to be divulged in the hands of the assessee. v) From copy of sale deed available at assessee's paper book Annexure-3, it is gathered that the assessee has sold the property to Manoj Kuma Sahoo for a consideration of Rs. 2,78,000/- which is part of amount of savings in the credit of the assessee, which cannot be ignored while making allegation of unexplained investment. vi) From the copy of bank statement of the assessee at Annexure-4, I observe that the amount of Rs. 3,26,832/- has been transferred to ICICI Bank and against which investment with Bajaj Allianz of Rs. 3,26,832/- has been made and this amount has been picked up by the AO for making addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he view that allegation of unexplained cannot be made in the hands of the assessee u/s.69 of the Act. 15. In view of foregoing discussion, I reach to a logical conclusion that the AO has made addition by invoking the provisions of section 69 of the Act without any specific provisions of the Act and the assessee has substantially established that she had sufficient source of funds in the form of her accumulated saving for the last 15 years, against sale of property and jewellery and other valuables received from her parents on their death. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the contention of the lower authorities for making the addition and confirming the same. Consequently, I direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 17,76,662/- and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
