9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee is a trader in garments on semi-retail basis and is carrying on business on a small scale. The assessee did not file the return of income for the impugned year under consideration owing to the minor income earned by the assessee as a result of which the taxable income of the assessee was falling below the prescribed taxable limit and hence no tax was payable by the assessee for the impugned year under consideration. Asssessee has also submitted that the assessee could not cause appearance before the assessing officer since the notices were issued at the email address of the erstwhile consultant of the assessee and therefore, the assessee could not respond to such notices. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts, the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1 The ld. NFAC has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding that the cash deposits to the extent of Rs. 9,36,300/- in account with Nutan Nagarik Sahkari Bank was unexplained income u/s. 69A. 3.2 That the in the facts and circumstances of the ld. NFAC ought not to have upheld the addition of Rs. 9,36,300/- in respect of the cash deposits to the extent of Rs. 9,36,300/- in account with Nutan Nagarik Sahkari Bank was unexplained income u/s. 69A. 3.3 Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative the impugned addition made by AO and confirmed by NFAC is highly excessive and calls for substantial reduction by invoking the provisions of sec.44AD. It is, therefore, prayed that the additions upheld by the NFAC may kindly be dele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn of income. Accordingly, the Ld. Assessing Officer held that since the assessee failed to give any explanation about the nature and source of cash deposits in the bank account held by the assessee with Nutan Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd, hence the value of cash deposits, appearing in the Bank Account is deemed to be the unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and was added to the total Income of the assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act were initiated separately for concealment of income. 4. In appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that the assessee is a small business owner engaged in the retail trade of clothes and garments and has been operating on a semi-retail basis for the year under co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thod for small businesses, income of the assessee would be Rs. 74,904 at 8% and Rs. 1,87,260 at 20%, both of which are below the exemption limit. 5. However, Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, by upholding the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer, with the following observations: 5.11 During the course of appellate proceedings the appellant submitted written submission wherein it has contended that the appellant was engaged in retails trade of garments and clothes. The appellant has further stated he has not maintained any books. 5.12 In view of the above, it is held that the evidences filed by the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings are not reliable and they do not extend any credibility to the deposit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, the counsel for the assessee drew our attention to written submissions, along with various details filed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(Appeals) along with the bank statement, for the perusal of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) which were omitted to be considered by him. Further, the counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee did not file return of income for the impugned year under consideration owing to the minuscule income earned by the assessee, which was falling below the taxable limit. The counsel for the assessee drew our attention to page 33-34 of the paper book and submitted that all relevant details were filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for his consideration, which were omitted to be considered. Further, the coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered view, it is a fit case where the addition made by the assessing officer is liable to be deleted. This is for the reason that the assessee is a trader in garments on semi-retail basis and is carrying on business on a small scale. The assessee did not file the return of income for the impugned year under consideration owing to the minor income earned by the assessee as a result of which the taxable income of the assessee was falling below the prescribed taxable limit and hence no tax was payable by the assessee for the impugned year under consideration. Further, the counsel for the assessee has also submitted that the assessee could not cause appearance before the assessing officer since the notices were issued at the email address o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
