9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total addition of Rs. 8,01,210/- - Rs. 4,00,000/- = Rs. 4,01,210/- as undisclosed capital and it was a reasonable order passed under the provisions of law and accordingly we sustained the order passed by the CIT(A). - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No. 181/PAT/2019 - - - Dated:- 3-8-2022 - SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. DR ORDER PER SONJOY SARMA, JM: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Jamshedpur dated 06.03.2019 [hereinafter referred to as CIT ] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The assessee in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of Rs. 4,01,210/- made by ld. CIT(A) on account of peak credit, being undisclosed capital in the bank accounts of the assessee. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 09.11.2012 showing total income of Rs. 1,52,177/-. However, the assessee was found to have made a cash deposit of Rs. 1,25,67,000/- in his bank account. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 was issued upon the assessee on 11.04.2014 and asked to file the return of income for the assessment year in question. However, the assessee did not make any endeavour to file any return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Besides that the notice u/s 142(1) were issued but the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the ld. DR. 7. The ld. DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) had given substantive relief to the assessee and as such there is no scope for interference with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and discussion to this effect reads as under: 3. The first issue is that AO had estimated income of the appellant-assessee @ 8% of the turnover of Rs. 1,25,67,000/-. In the instant case, AO had treated total cash deposits of Rs. 1,25,67,000/- in the bank accounts as Gross Turnover of the business of the appellant-assessee. I have gone through the arguments of the appellant and the facts of the case. I find the appellant s contention to be correct. Upon analysis of the transactions recorded in bank accounts, it appears that these transactions are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, not adjudicated. 8. We after going through the findings of ld. CIT(A) and wherein the ld. CIT(A) allowed Rs. 4,00,000/- as genuine capital arises from past accumulated savings of assessee and remaining Rs. 4,01,210/- confirmed as undisclosed capital of the assessee. 9. We after hearing the submission made by the ld. DR and perusing the material available on record, we do not see any reasons to disagree with the ld. CIT(A) s findings where the ld. CIT(A) regarding addition made by AO of Rs. 8,01,210/- on account of peak credit being undisclosed capital in bank a/c s of the assessee where the ld. CIT(A) viewed that sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as genuine capital i.e. out of accumulated past savings and remaining amount of Rs. 4,01 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
