SMT. SARLA SETHIA,ALIPURDUAR vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1083/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 January 2019AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the addition as the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate that the bank deposits were included in the declared turnover or accounted for.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared a turnover of Rs. 35,88,238/- under Section 44AD. The AO added Rs. 88,747/- by treating deposits of Rs. 11,09,347/- in an Axis Bank account as undisclosed turnover.

What were the issues?

Whether the bank deposits were undisclosed turnover and if the assessee provided sufficient evidence to prove they were accounted for in the declared income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B(SMC

Before: Shri A. T. Varkey, JM]

Hearing: 17.01.2019Pronounced: 23.01.2019

This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Jalpaiguri dated 07.03.2018 for AY 2014-15.

2.

The sole ground of this appeal of assessee is against the action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.88,747/- in treating the deposits in Axis Bank account as undisclosed turnover and adding 8% of the deposits of Rs.11,09,347/- i.e. Rs.88,747/-.

3.

Briefly stated facts are that the assessee filed her return of income showing gross turnover from business as Rs.35,88,238/- and total income of Rs.2,46,317/- u/s. 44AD of the Income-tax Act, 961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The AO made an addition of Rs.88,747/- determining 8% of the undisclosed turnover of Rs.11,09,347/- and thus made a demand of Rs.16,606/-. However, according to assessee, the assessee filed her return by showing total turnover of Rs.35,88,238/- which includes the turnover of Rs.11,09,347/-.

Smt. Sarla Sethia, AY:2014-15 But according to AO, this deposit of Rs.11,09,347/- in the Axis Bank account has not been accounted for by the assessee in the return of income filed by the assessee. Moreover, the AO also stated that the balance sheet of the assessee wherein the said account with Axis Bank is not reflected. Hence, he added the said sum to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the action of AO. Aggrieved, assessee is before us.

4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the gross business turnover of Rs.35,88,238/- shown by the assessee in her return of income includes Rs.11,09,347/- deposited by her in the Axis Bank account. He also submitted that the deposits of Rs.11,09,347/- has been disclosed by the assessee and duly accounted for in the return. Hence, the addition should be deleted. On the other hand, the Ld. DR heavily relied on the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the action of the AO has held as under:

“However, Ld. A/R has not been able to convince with any evidence, the argument made by him that the deposits in the said Axis Bank were included in the business turnover. He has merely reiterated whatever was stated before the AO. In view of the same, the contention made by the Ld. AR cannot be accepted and the ground of appeal is dismissed.”

5. Since Ld. AR of the assessee is unable to produce any evidence in support of his claim before the Ld. CIT(A) and also before us, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. Therefore, this appeal of assessee is dismissed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 23rd January, 2019. Sd/- (Aby. T. Varkey) Judicial Member Dated : 23rd January, 2019 Jd. (Sr.P.S.)

Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.

Appellant – Smt. Sarla Sethia, C/o, Hanuman Sethia, Hatkola, Falakata, Dist. Alipurduar-735211. Respondent – ITO, Ward-1(4), Jalpaiguri. 2 3. CIT(A), Jalpaiguri (sent through e-mail)

4.

CIT, Kolkata.

5.

DR, ITAT, Kolkata. (sent through e-mail)

More judgments on Section 44AD

All 2,222 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AD →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →