ASHWINI RAVINDRA BIROLE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-6(3), PUNE

2 & 2016/PUN/2019 2. It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s identical substantive ground(s) pleaded in both the appeals challenges correctness of section 69 unexplained money deposit addition of Rs.64,67,568/- and Rs.83,57,314/-; assessment year wise, respectively made in the lower proceedings.

There is hardly any dispute that the assessee all along has claimed to have carried out trading in steel sector as per her detailed paper books running into 62 pages in A.Y, 2015-16 and 117 pages in latter A.Y. 2016-17; respectively. Learned counsel vehemently argued that once the assessee has proved herself to have been carrying out the foregoing trading activity and all the relevant details of purchases and sales form part of records, both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in declining her the benefit of presumptive scheme of taxation u/s 44AD of the Act.

The Revenue has drawn strong support from both the learned lower authorities’ action making the impugned section 69A addition in these twin assessment years.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s vehement arguments and find no merit therein. We make it clear that apart from filing the foregoing documentary evidence, she has even failed to place on record either any VAT/sales tax registration as well as the corresponding business place’s details or go-down 3 ITA Nos.2015 & 2016/PUN/2019 receipts or any other supportive evidence. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decisions in Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1972) 82 ITR 540 (SC) have settled the law long back that any evidence filed in income tax proceedings has to be considered in the light of human probabilities and after removing all blinkers. We apply the very reasoning herein as well to note that apart from claiming herself as a trader in steel items in both these assessment years, the assessee has not proved her actual business activity at all so as to rebut the learned lower authorities’ findings. We thus affirm both these additions of Rs.64,67,568/- and Rs.83,57,314/- in principle.

The fact also remains that the assessee’s impugned bank account(s) had seen multiple withdrawals and deposits entries as it is evident from para 6 page 3 in assessment order dated 27.12.2017 for A.Y, 2015-16 before us. The factual position it is not different in the latter A.Y. 2016-17 as well. We therefore direct the learned Assessing Officer to consider addition of the “peak” sum only after considering telescopic benefit of former assessment year’s addition amount in latter assessment year; as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. It is further made clear that it shall be the assessee’s onus only to claim and prove her “peak” amount(s) by filing all necessary detailed evidence at her own risk and