9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er than from the admitted business.
Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, in the considered opinion of this Court , it would be appropriate, as both the parties have also agreed in the open court, to treat the amount of Rs. 16,81,802/- also as business receipts and therefore the same can be subjected to the profit @ 8 % of the said amount Rs. 16,81,802/-, which can be added as income of the Assessee, hence the AO is directed to consider/apply the profit @ 8% of Rs. 16,81,802/- add the same in the income of the Assessee. Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ering the fact that the Assessee had deposited cash and cheques as appearing in the bank accounts, found the Assessee to be the owner of the money appearing in his bank accounts and therefore the provisions of section 69A of the Act is applicable. As the Assessee found to be the owner of the money, such money was not recorded in the books of account and its nature and source is not identifiable, consequently the AO treated the amount of Rs. 16,81,802/- as unexplained and added u/s 69A of the Act. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner and claimed that he had declared his total business receipts of Rs. 1,08,38,664/- in the return filed on presumptive basis u/s 44AD of the Act, while the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t under section 44AD and accordingly the additions made by the AO was quashed on this ground." 4. The Ld. Commissioner though considered the submissions of the Assessee, however, found the same as non-satisfactory and ultimately affirmed the addition of Rs. 16,81,802/- by observing and holding as under: "The appellant was failed to file satisfactory submission w.r.t. above said balance receipt of Rs. 16,81,802/- Further, the A.O during assessment proceedings has already allowed gross receipts of the appellant under section 44AD of the I.T. Act, 1961 although the appellant failed to file original return of income which thereby means that the AO has given credit to the submission made by the appellant that the cash deposits form a pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the family, which was deposited in the bank during the demonetization period. The AO and the Ld. Commissioner considering the fact that no details were furnished by the Assessee, respectively made and affirmed the addition of Rs. 16,81,802/- u/s 69A of the Act. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the rival claims of the parties and determination made by the authorities below. Admittedly the Assessee has not carried out any other business except the imitation jewellery. Even otherwise no material is available on record by which it can be construed that the Assessee has earned any other income other than from the admitted business. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, in the considered opinion of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
