9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'the Act') for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. In the instant case, as per information available in the AIMS module, the Assessee has deposited the amount of Rs. 16,84,100/- as cash during the demonetization period i.e. 08.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 in his bank account maintained with SVC Co-operative Bank Ltd., however for the assessment year under consideration, failed to file his return of income. Consequently, the case of the Assessee was reopened u/s 147/148 of the Act by issuing the notice dated 23.09.2019 u/s 148 of the Act, in response to which the Assessee has filed his return of income along with computation of income. 2.1 On perusing the computation of income, it was seen by the Assessing Officer (AO) that the Assessee is engaged in the busine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ization period. The Assessee also filed its reply adted 02.01.2024 through e-proceedings, which is reproduced below: - "Your honour the appellant is a small time businessman who has been filing his income tax return u/s 44AD wherein the maintaining of book of accounts is not mandatory so from where can he produce documentary evidences to substantiate his claim when the income tax law permits him for not maintaining books of accounts, Section 44AD was introduced in the Income-tax Act, 1961 with the purpose to ease the burden of small taxpayers and make them more tax compliant with minimal compliances. If the income is declared under section 44AD of the Income-tax Act on presumptive basis, then the assess is not required to maintain b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be safely assumed that the appellant has nothing to explain the sources of said difference of Rs. 16,81,802/- Considering all the facts and the circumstances of the case no interference with the assessment order of the AO is called for. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the assessment order passed by the assessing officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 23.12.2019." 5. The Assessee, being aggrieved with the impugned order, is in appeal before this Court and reiterated his claim made before the authorities below. On the contrary the Ld. DR refuted the claim of the Assessee by supporting the impugned order. 6. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Though it is a fact that the total deposits made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
