SHRI YAKUBBHAI MUSABHAI PATEL,,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, BHARUCH

Yakubbhai Musabhai Patel Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Bharuch /ITA No.904/Ahd/2017/A.Y. 2011-12 Page 1 of 3

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सुरत �यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.904/AHD/2017 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Yakubbhai Musabhai Patel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 44A/45, 46, 1st Floor, Ward – 2, Bharuch. National Trade Centre, Panchbatti, Bharuch. [PAN: AEBPP 4522 R] अपीलाथ� Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent Shri Mukund K. Rao – CA िनधा�रती क� ओर से /Assessee by Shri Dileep Kumar – Sr.DR राज�व क� ओर से /Revenue by सुनवाई क� तारीख/ Date of hearing: 26.03.2019 उ�ोषणा क� तारीख/Pronouncement on: 30.04.2019 आदेश /O R D E R PER O.P.MEENA, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of learned 1. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara (in short “the CIT (A)”) dated 08.02.2017 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The grounds raised by the Assessee read as under : “The Appellant prays and appeals that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Baroda has erred in law and on facts allowing additions made by ITO Ward 2, Bharuch u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Appellant pleads as under; I. The addition made of Rs.9,37,000/- on account of unexplained Cash Credit be squashed. II. Out of Rs.11,35,000/- sustained by the CIT (Appeals) – 3, the following amounts should be deleted; - Rs.8,01,000/- being Advances Received against Sale of Property/Sale Deed.

Yakubbhai Musabhai Patel Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Bharuch /ITA No.904/Ahd/2017/A.Y. 2011-12 Page 2 of 3

- Rs. 1,41,540/- being gross agricultural income. - Rs.1,92,460/- being deposited towards Professional Receipts. III. The addition made by disallowing the 25% of the Total Expenses should be restricted to 10% of Expenses except Salary and Depreciation expenses. Thus the addition should be restricted to 10% of Total Expense less Salary Expanse less Depreciation. 3. The above grounds are against the addition of Rs. 9,37,000 on account of unexplained cash credit, addition of Rs. 8,01,000 being advance against sale of property, gross agricultural income of Rs. 1,41,540 and deposit of Rs. 1,92,460 on account of profession and disallowance restricted to 25% of total expenses. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the authorities below failed to apply peak of the deposit made in the bank account being unexplained cash credit and advance receipt of professional receipts . Therefore, he prayed that a direction may be given to the AO to adopt peak of deposits. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the issue covered by decision of Tribunal in the case of the assessee in I.T.A.No. 1726 & 2976 /Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11 dated 28.02.2019 wherein the Tribunal has directed the AO to adopt peak deposit for addition. Au contraire, the ld. Sr. D.R. relied on the orders of lower authorities. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on 5. record. We find that the tribunal in I.T.A.No. 1726 & 2976 /Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11 dated 28.02.2019 has held as under: “Considering the totality of facts, we deem it proper to direct the AO to adopt peak of the deposits made in the bank account. Accordingly, the effective ground of the assessee is

Yakubbhai Musabhai Patel Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Bharuch /ITA No.904/Ahd/2017/A.Y. 2011-12 Page 3 of 3

allowed on the terms indicated herein above.” Therefore, respectively following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the assessee, we direct the AO to adopt peak of deposits made in bank account. Accordingly, ground no. I related to unexplained cash credit of Rs.937,700/- and addition of Rs.11,35,000/- in Ground No. II are deemed to have covered by the amount of peak credit of deposits in bank account. With regard to Ground No. III, the AO is directed to restrict the disallowance to 10% of total expenses as claimed by the assessee. In view of this matter, Ground No. I to III are partly allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed on the terms 6. indicated above. The order pronounced in the open court on 30.04.2019. 7.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAM LAL NEGI) (O.P.MEENA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) सुरत/ Surat, िदनांक Dated: 30th April, 2019/S.Gangadhara Rao, Sr.PS Copy of order sent to- Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/Guard file of ITAT. By order / / TRUE COPY / / Assistant Registrar, Surat