ITO 16(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. PRATAP L AGANANI, MUMBAI

None appeared on behalf of the assessee, the bench therefore, decided to dispose off the appeal after considering the submission of ld. DR and the material available on record. From the record we found that the assessee was owning two trucks and offered its income u/s.44AE. Without any reason the AO enhanced the turnover of assessee by 2 Rs.6,28,873/-. By the impugned order, the CIT(A) deleted the same after observing as under :- “2.4.5 On weighing the pros and cons, I find that the Ld. AO has not doubted the total turnover of Rs.36,72,450/- shown by the appellant and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it could be said that the receipt of Rs.6,28,873/- did not form part of his turnover merely because break up of sales was not provided. It is an admitted position that the appellant does not maintain proper books of accounts and, therefore, to make an addition over and above the turnover of Rs.36,72,450/- would be unreasonable and arbitrary. Accordingly, this ground of appeal

3. We have considered rival contentions and do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for deleting the estimated addition of Rs.6,28,873/-, which does not form part of turnover of the assessee. The addition made on account of purchase of property was deleted by CIT(A) after having following observation :- “2.4.8 On weighing the rival contentions, it is seen that the appellant had signed the Assignment Deed as Partner of M/s. Shalimar Textile Processors (I) Pvt. Ltd., and not in his individual capacity. The Assignment Deed dated 13-09-2004 was between the DRT Receiver, Debt Recovery Tribunal and partnership firm M/s. Shalimar Textile Processors and thus as far as the source of money for purchase is concerned, the same would be the question in the hands of the partnership firm, M/s. Shalimar Textile Processors, and not the Partner as he signed the Assignment Deed on behalf of the partnership firm. Question of formation of company by the name M/s. Shalimar, Textile Processors (I) Pvt. Ltd. and the source of capital in the hands of that company are evidences which are not relevant for formation of any opinion at this stage. Ld. AO has merely made the addition because the initial addition was made u/s. 144 which was ultimately set aside by the Hon'ble ITAT. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that no addition was warranted in the hands of the appellant. However, Ld. AO is free to make reference to the Assessing Officer having territorial jurisdiction over the firm or the company. M/s. Shalimar Textile Processors or M/s. Shalimar Textile Processors (I) Pvt. Ltd. for enquiring into the source of money for the purchase of the property in question. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed.”