9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld.CIT(A) that the assessee has not filed any return of income voluntarily, and only after issuance of notice under section 148 the assessee came forward and filed the return for the Asst.Year 2009-10. Had there been no proceedings under section 148 of the Act, the assessee would not have filed any return of income. Even before us also, there is no fresh material evidence to support claim of the assessee except submissions and materials as were placed before the lower authorities. In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A), which we uphold, and the grounds of appeal of the assessee are rejected. - ITA No.151/RJT/2018 - - - Dated:- 3-6-2022 - Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Mehul Ranpura, AR For the Revenue : Shri S.S. Rathi, Sr.DR ORDER PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 28.3.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jamnagar relating to the Asst.Year 2009-10. 2. The assessee has raised following substantial grounds in his appeal: 1. The ld.CIT(A) has err ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n earlier years, and therefore, the same could not be assessed as income in the current year. Further, the cash deposits to the tune of Rs.10.00 lakhs were made out of cash available in books of accounts from earlier withdrawals from the bank. However, the ld.AO did not accept the explanation of the assessee. He was of the view that since the assessee has never filed his return for income till Asst.Year 2009-10, and the return filed by him for the Asst.Year 2009-10 was not voluntary rather it was filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act on 29.3.2016. He further observed that had no notice been issued and proceedings under section 147 not initiated, the assessee would not have filed the return. For these reasons, the ld.AO rejected the explanation of the assessee, and he made addition of Rs.34,56,281/- under section 69 of the Act and Rs.10,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Before the ld.CIT(A) assessee filed a detailed submissions, which appellate authority has reproduced from page no.4 to 9 of the impugned order. Crux of the submissions made by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A) can be summarize ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Motor cycle purchase don 19-1-2007 46,500 Investment made by cheque upto 21-3-2008 with AKSHAR VATIKA LAND 10,35,000 Loans and advance given to Trivedi Family by cheque upto 18-3-2008 8,10,000 Bank balances 34,098 Cash withdrawn Hathu account (1150000-8337 spent agr etc) 10,66,663 Bank balance 34,098 Total 36,81,281 Total 36,81,281 vi) Assessee submitted that during the assessment the above details were filed before the AO with proof. Even the AO has recorded a finding to the fact in para 5.1 that the opening capital account balance of Rs.34,56,281/- stood explained as investment of earlier years, but decided to disbelieve the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has filed return of income for the first time, tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents made prior to 31.3.2008, and therefore, the same cannot be treated as income for the current year. In other words, the CIT(A) held that addition on account of investment could be made only in the year in which the investment was made and not during the year under consideration. 7. So far as addition of Rs.10.00 lakhs made by the AO under section 68 of the Act is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) noticed that the assessee has shown gross contract receipt of Rs.15,75,250/- and offered Rs.1,26,020/- which is 8% of the gross receipt under section 44AD of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) has sought break-up of the gross receipt, which was submitted by the assessee as under: Mahendra Jadeja : Rs.2,00,000/- Petty contract work : Rs.5,75,250/- Mohan Narshibhai Dalwadi : Rs.3,00,000/- Ramesh Satwara : Rs.1,75,000/- Pravin Satwara : Rs.1,75,000/- Kachubha Jadeja : Rs.1,50,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the impugned additions confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) was because of the fact that the assessee was unable to substantiate the same with any evidence or proof. Therefore, the impugned order requires to be upheld and the appeal of the liable to be dismissed. 10. We have heard both the parties; perused record and the submissions of the assessee made before the lower authorities. We find from the assessment order that the AO has made two additions viz. (i) addition on account of opening capital account of Rs.34,56,281/-, which was deleted by the ld.CIT(A), and (ii) addition of Rs.10,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 which was restricted by the ld.CIT(A) to the extent of Rs.6,50,000/-. Further, the ld.CIT(A) has also enhanced income/assessment of the assessee for the Asst.Year 2009-10 by Rs.5,75,250/-. This amount represented difference of gross contract work receipt of Rs.15,75,250/- and Rs.10,00,000/-. The ld.CIT(A) noticed that addition of Rs.10,00,000/- made by the AO under section 68 of the Act was part of contract receipt of Rs.15,75,250/-. Accordingly, the ld.CIT(A) has sought for detailed break-up of gross receipt of Rs.15,75,250/-, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
