ITAT directs AO to assess deposit as business receipts at 25% profit, rejecting section 44AF.

The ITAT partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s decision and directing the AO to sustain the addition based on a 25% estimated profit of the deposit amount, clarifying the deposits as business receipts despite insufficient documentation and rejecting the application of section 44AF for profit estimation.

---

---

Issues:
Assessment of bank deposits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2009-10.

Analysis:
The appellant, an assessee, contested the assessment of Rs. 11,51,913/- as income from bank deposits made under section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) received information about the deposits made by the assessee in a bank account not disclosed to the department. The assessee claimed the deposits were business receipts from dealing in Soaps and FMCG products. However, the AO rejected this claim due to lack of supporting documentation and non-maintenance of books of accounts. The AO assessed the entire deposit amount as the assessee's income.

Before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], the assessee reiterated the business receipts claim, but failed to provide adequate details. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, rejecting the claim and dismissed the appeal. The appellant then argued before the ITAT that the deposits represented sales collections from a partnership firm's customers, but due to insufficient documentation, the AO's decision was justified.

The ITAT analyzed the deposits made into the bank account and observed they were from various cities, indicating a connection to the assessee's activities. While the nature of the deposits couldn't be definitively proven, considering the lack of evidence on the funds' source, the ITAT accepted the claim that the deposits were business receipts. The ITAT also rejected the application of section 44AF for profit estimation due to the absence of records supporting the business operations.

Regarding the alternative claim of assessing the peak credit amount, the ITAT found insufficient evidence to determine the actual sales, leading to an estimation of net profit at 25% of the deposit amount. Consequently, the ITAT partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and directing the AO to sustain the addition based on the estimated profit.

In conclusion, the ITAT's judgment clarified the nature of the deposits as business receipts despite insufficient documentation, rejected the application of section 44AF for profit estimation, and directed the assessment based on a 25% estimated profit.

---