9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explained Cash. Credit u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act in complete disregard of the facts and the law. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have directed the deletion of the addition made and the same is prayed to be directed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-3, Thane, alternatively ought to have restricted the addition of the peak credit amounting to Rs.3,20,000/-. The appellant prays that the alternate plea may please be accepted. 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 17.02.2009 declaring total income of Rs.4,50,250/-. The case was reopened by way of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department, Thane. According to the inform ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .8,20,000/- and the breakup of the same is Rs.3,20,000/- on 15.05.2007 and Rs.5,00,000/- on 12.09.2007, totaling to Rs.8,20,000/-. During the appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant has argued that, the addition made by the AO of Rs.8,20,000/- is not justified and only the peak credit to the extent of Rs.3,20,000/- should have been adopted for addition. In this regard, the AR of the appellant has relied on the judgments in the case of CIT Vs. Manoj Indravadan Chokshi 50 Taxmann.com 419 (Guj), ITO Vs. Shri Jiteshkumar G. Bhadiyadra in ITA No. 2865/Ahd/2011 dated 10.07.2013, ITO Vs. Shri Kaushik Kantilal Soni in IT(SS)A No. 160/Ahd/2006 dated 28.08.2009 and ITO Vs. Shri Dinesh Ajitbhai Jain in ITA No. 2740/Ahd/2012 dated 31.01.2013. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07.2007 and receipt of Rs.10,00,000/- on 14.08.2007. Further on 12.09.2007 Rs.5,00,000/- has been shown to be paid and on 30.09.2007 again Rs.5,00,000/- has been shown as receipt. The details of payments and receipts are recorded on one page and in chronological order. In such circumstances, the peak credit amount of Rs.3,20,000/- as worked out in table reproduced in earlier paragraph only remains as unexplained in the hands of the assessee. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that there is no continuous deposit is without appreciation of the facts properly. The contention of the Ld. counsel of the assessee of adopting peak credit is justified. Accordingly, we restrict the addition in the case to Rs.3,20,000/-. The ground No. 2 of the appeal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
