INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 2 KALYAN, KALYAN vs. PRADEEP SHYAMLAL SAYANI, ULHASNAGAR

On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), being the first fact finding authority, erred to ascertain the corrects facts in respect of unexplained credit of Rs. 1,48,48,211/-, and bring it to a logical conclusion.

The order of the CIT(A) may be vacated & and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any ground of appeal.

As per the facts of the case the assessment in this case was completed but later on it was reopened since the assessee could not reply to all the notices served by the Ld.AO for re-opening, consequently assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act by making the addition of Rs. 1,48,48,211/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act.

The main issued was that the assessee deposited a sum of Rs. 2,38,25,757/-, whereas the turnover as reflected in the ITR was Rs. 55,76,000/- and the sources remained unexplained. The AO had reasons to believe because assessee had not filed the return of income despite having taxable income. Therefore assessment was re- opened.

Aggrieved by this order, revenue preferred appeal before us on the grounds mentioned herein above.

Both the grounds raised by the revenue are interconnected and interrelated and relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in estimating the profit @ 8% of unexplained credit of Rs. 1,48,48,211/-, therefore we have decided to adjudicate these grounds through the present consolidated order.

We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgements cited before us and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. As per Ld.AO, the turnover reflected in ITR was Rs. 98,66,168/- and the total deposit in the bank were reflected at Rs. 2,38,25,757/- which remained unexplained/undisclosed. Therefore, the difference of Rs.

On the contrary the stand of the assessee was that he has already offered turnover amounting to Rs. 55,76,000/- and differential amount of Rs. 1,48,48,211/- is added as income u/s 69A of the Act. Therefore, the turnover difference as per bank statement and ITR is only Rs. 38,25,835/- accordingly income @8% of Rs. 38,25,835/- could be added.

It is an undisputed fact that it is established by the appellant that he had undertaken business during the year and on the other hand, the AO has not brought out any material on record to establish that the difference amount is from unexplained sources.

And even the assessee had accepted variation to the extent of Rs. 38,20,835/- in the reconciliation.

Since from the copy of bank account there were cash withdrawals and subsequent cash deposit and assessee failed to submit the entry wise narration for the withdrawal and re-deposit. In this way assessee had not discharged its onus therefore, under such circumstances AO was directed

Even otherwise no new facts or circumstances have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we see no reasons to interfere into or to deviate from the lawful findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground raised and by the revenue stands dismissed. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed.