9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2% of the amount deposited with the bank. If such is the view of the Tribunal,, then, in our opinion, we should not disturb the same. No substantial question of law. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A respectively of the Act, 1961 for the huge cash deposits in the saving bank accounts. 6. The assessee being dissatisfied with the assessment order preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) (for short "CIT(A)"). The CIT (A) called for the remand report and thereafter dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 25.02.2013. 7. The assessee being dissatisfied with the order passed by the CIT(A), preferred appeal before the Appellat Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and directed the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on merits. 8. The CIT(A), vide order dated 08.08.2014 directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ₹ 7,78,35,500/- made under Section 68 of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the transactions reflected in the bank statements are in connection with such business. As such, the onus shifted on the Revenue to negate the contentions of the assessee based on the documentary evidence. Therefore, the AO was to exercise the powers given under the statute to find out the veracity of the contentions of the assessee. The AO could have deputed the inspectors of the income tax to conduct the enquiries at the site of the parties fumished by the assessee. But he has not done so. Furthermore, the assessee cannot be penalized on account of nonresponse from the sales tax department. 9.2 We further note that, the Revenue has not brought anything on record suggesting that the assessee had so much of the income as computed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f understanding are reproduced as under : 6. Your may kindly appreciate that in present case the appellant has sold goods by making URD purchases, in the similar case of URD purchases Hon. Rajkot bench of ITAT have held that profit rate of 1.25% is reasonable. We summaries gist of cases as under and enclose herewith copies of order for your honours ready reference. M/s. Balkrishnahna Dwarkadas Vs. ITO. ITA No.923/ RJT/2010 dated 01.01.2010, Rajkot Bench. The addition of unaccounted sales founded during the course of survey by Sales-Tax Department. ITAT Rajkot bench has held that that entire amount of sale cannot be added but only profit @ 5% of unaccounted sales can be added and hence bench has confirm the addition of profit on sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that score. The total unrecorded sale cannot be regarded as the profit of the assessee. The net profit rate has to be adopted and once a net profit rate is adopted, it cannot be said that there is perversity of approach. 9.5 However, the learned CIT (A) while deciding the issue has not considered the case law relied upon by the assessee. In our considered view the learned CIT (A) was under the obligation to reject the contention of the assessee based on some cogent materials. 9.6 As such we are of the view that the learned CIT (A) was to bring some comparative materials to justify the profit computed by him at the rate of 8% of the turnover. Thus in the absence of any basis brought on record, we are not inclined to uphold the finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
