Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Assessee by : Sh. Chetan Karia-AR Revenue by : Sh. M.C Omi Ningshen (DR) Date of hearing : 25.04.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 17.05.2017 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee u/s 253 of the Income-tax Act (‘the Act’) is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A)-24, Mumbai dated 10.02.2014 for AY-2009-10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 13,80,500/- u/s 68 being peak of cash deposits in bank account. 2) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 3,00,850/- being cheque deposited in bank account. 3) Without prejudice, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing addition of Rs. 2,12,166/- being profit of H.M. Trading Corporation.
2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income for relevant AY on 29.08.2009 declaring total income at Rs. 2,99,577/-. The assessment was completed on 29.12.2011 u/s 143(3) of the Act. During the assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that assessee’s income from business of proprietorship of M/s H.M. Trading Corporation was not included by - Mudar Yakubali Kudrati the assessee in his return of income. The assessee was asked to file Profit & Loss Account of M/s H.M. Trading Corporation. The assessee submitted the Profit & Loss Account of said business for taxation. The AO was not satisfied with the Profit & Loss Account of M/s H.M. Trading Corporation and the same was rejected and on the basis of peak theory the AO made the addition of Rs. 13,80,350/- and a sum of Rs. 3,008,50/- on account of unexplained cash credit in Bank Account. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), both the addition was sustained. Further, aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.
We have heard the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee and ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for Revenue and perused the material available on record. The Ld. AR of the assessee argued that on the basis of assessment order under consideration, the AO the reopened the assessment for AY’s 2008-09 and 2011-12 and made the separate assessment for the business income of M/s H.M. Trading Corporation. The ld AR for the assessee prayed that the ground No.1 to 3 which are interconnected issue may be restore to the file of AO to decided the same in accordance with the assessment order passed for AY 2008-09 and 2011- 12. The ld DR for the revenue not disputed that the income from the assessee’s concern namely M/s H.M. Trading is assessed in AY 2008-09 and 2011-12 separately in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act.
We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the order of the authorities below. We have also seen the assessment order for AY 2008-09 and 2011-12 passed under section 143(3) rws 147 of the Act. Considering, the prayer of ld AR for the assessee that the business income of M/s H.M. Trading Corporation was not offered in the original return of income and on the basis of which the assessment for earlier and subsequent year was reopened under section 147. The assessing officer completed the assessment for year for AY 2008-09 and 2011-12 and taxed the income for those years. Hence, the grounds of appeal are restored to the file of AO to decide the issue afresh after giving the opportunity to the assessee in accordance with law, keeping in view the assessment order for AY - Mudar Yakubali Kudrati