REETA GUPTA,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 2(2), MEERUT

PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against order dated 31.08.2017 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Meerut {CIT(A)} for assessment year 2014-15.

(Smt. Reeta Gupta) 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed declaring an income of Rs. 2,68,820/- The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee had deposited cash in Savings Bank Account as well as Current Account with the bank. As per Form 26AS, the total turnover was Rs. 28,05,753/- whereas the assessee had declared a turnover of Rs. 45,82,940/-. The assessee was required to provide explanation in respect of the differential turnover of Rs. 17,77,186/- but the assessee could not furnish any documentary evidences. The AO also noted that an amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- was deposited in the current account and a cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- was deposited in the Savings Bank Account for which no evidence of source or satisfactory explanation was filed. The Assessing Officer therefore treated the amount of Rs. 65,80,000/- as unexplained and added back the same u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) read with Section 115 BBE. The AO further noted that the assessee has shown excess turnover of Rs. (Smt. Reeta Gupta) 17,77,186/- out of this Rs. 6,85,000/- had already been added back u/s 68 and, therefore, the remaining amount i.e. Rs. 10,92,186/- was to be considered as turnover on which the Assessing officer applied a net profit rate of 20% and made a further addition of Rs. 2,18,438/- on this account. The assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 11,71,820/-. 2.1 Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT (A) who gave partial relief of Rs. 1,85,000/- but upheld the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- as being unexplained. The Ld. CIT (A) also directed that the net profit rate should be applied @ 8% instead of 20% and the same was directed to be applied on the confirmed amount of Rs. 12,77,186/-. 2.2 Now, the assessee is before the Tribunal and has challenged the confirmation of addition by the Ld. CIT (A). 3.0 The Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the addition on account of cash deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- was not correct as there were huge deposits during the year under consideration and the assessee