SRI ISHAN AGARWAL,SILIGURI vs. THE DCIT, CIR-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

O R D E R

Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

Sri Ishan Agarwal 484 & 485/Kol/2015 A.Y: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted before us that in these three appeals, the main issue involved was that during the course of investigation carried out by ITO(Intelligence& Criminal Investigation), Siliguri, it was found that the assessee maintains one Account No.020801536166 with ICICI Bank, Siliguri which was not disclosed to the Income Tax Department. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that he maintains two other accounts in the same bank which are also not disclosed to the Income Tax Department. The assessee submitted a consolidated statement of all these accounts to the AO. The AO added the profits on the undisclosed turnover (that is, the consolidated total deposits made in the three undisclosed bank account) at the gross profit rates declared by the assessee on his disclosed turnover. The profit for A.Y. 2009-10 was calculated @ 4.69%, for A.Y. 2010-11 @ 4.74% and for A.Y. 2011-12 @ 6.45%. In addition to this, the AO added the peaks of the undisclosed accounts as Rs.7,29,925/- for A.Y. 2009-10, Rs.17,21,784/- for 2010-11 and Rs.28,92,939/- for A.Y. 2011-12. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the peak of undisclosed bank accounts should not be added as the disclosed cash and stock declared in Balance Sheet were utilized for this undisclosed business. The assessee also submitted before the CIT(A) that instead of gross profit, net profit should have been applied for calculating the income from the undisclosed business. The CIT(A) held that the AO had calculated the peaks of undisclosed accounts by setting off the peaks of earlier years. However, the profits of earlier years and current year from this undisclosed business have not been considered in Page | 2