RAVINDER SINGH 402SAI DEEP APARTMENT 26-RAM BAGH COLONY SHINDE KI CHAWNI LASHKAR GWALIOR ,GAWALIR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2) GWALIOR AAYKAR BHAWAN CITY CENTRE GWALIOR, GWALIOR

Facts and issues involved in both these appeals are common, hence, these appeals are being decided by the common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts only of are being narrated as under:

Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is engaged in trading of tiles and running a proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Jai Ji Traders. Assessee did not file return of income for the assessment year 2016-17. As per the information available with the department, a survey action u/s. 133A was conducted on J&K Bank Srinagar. During the survey proceedings, it was found that the assessee has deposited a cash of Rs.57,85,000/- during the financial year 2015-

The Assessing Officer had reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the year under consideration. Case was reopened u/s. 147 and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. Assessee filed return of income on 17.02.2022 in response thereof, declaring total income at Rs.5,14,280/-. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. Assessee submitted his reply to 2 | P a g e later notice. Assessee has opted section 44AD of the Act and declared his net profit of Rs.5,34,274/- @ 8% on gross receipts of Rs.66,78,450/-.

Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals), who found that the period for filing the return in response to section 148 of the Act fell between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, which was condoned by Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 10.01.2022 [2022] 134 taxmann.com 307(SC). The return was accordingly treated as valid by the first appellate authority. This apart, learned CIT(Appeals) also verified the bank statement and observed that the cash deposit was not made in the single instance but periodically and also found that with the credits, there were debits, many of which were based on the description of the transaction appearing in the bank statement, which were also found to the first appellate authority to be made towards tile vendors. Learned CIT(Appeals), after considering various documents such as CTO registration certificate, purchase and sale bills etc., found assessee’s trading of tiles business as authenticated one. However, for want of one to one co-relation as to whether the cash deposits were 3 | P a g e emanated from assessee’s business in trading in tiles or not, he treated 10% of cash deposits as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act as against addition of entire cash deposits made by the Assessing Officer.

Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on the following grounds :

Perused the record. None for assessee. Heard Ld. Sr. DR for revenue.

We find that the ld. CIT(Appeals) at para 5 of the impugned order, has reproduced appellant’s comparative table for AYs. 2016-17, 2017- 18, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22, showing turnover and net profit, wherein profit percentage has been shown at 8%, 8%, 9%, 8% and 7% respectively, whose average profit percentage comes to 8%, which is also in accordance with mandate of section 44AD of the Act. Learned

Facts and issue involved in this appeal are similar to except the difference in figures and dates etc. Therefore, our finding arrived at in shall mutatis mutandis apply to this case also. This appeal also deserves to be partly allowed in terms of our finding recorded hereinabove.

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed.