KUNHABDULLA,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, KOZHIKKODE

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making Section 68 addition of unexplained cash credits, Shri Johnson vehemently argued in favour of the corresponding pleadings throughout that this taxpayer had indeed filed his return under Section 44AD of the Act declaring income 2 M/s. Kunnummakkara Service/Income Tax Officer, W(2)(2) derived from brick’s business. Learned AR’s case therefore is that the entire sum ought to have been treated as business income only and the impugned Section 68 addition deserves to be deleted.

We find no merit in assessee’s stand as despite our repeated queries, there are no details of the area of land or labour payment; as the case may be so as to prove the brick kiln production business at all. This is further coupled with the fact that the learned Assessing Officer has only added peak cash to the tune of Rs.7,15,000/-. We thus uphold the lower authorities action to this effect therefore. The assessee fails in his sole substantive ground.

The assessee’s Stay Petition No. 28/Coch/2021 stand disposed off in very terms.

This assessee’s appeal ITA.No.152/Coch/2021 is dismissed and the stay application SA No.28/Coch/2021 stands rendered infructuous. Ordered accordingly.