TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 53
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acknowledgement due (RPAD for short) on 18-04-2012. However, on the date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee but the written submission is on the record. Therefore, we take up appeal and CO for hearing in the absence of assessee. First we take up Revenue's appeal in ITA No.2609/Ahd/2011. 2. The Revenue has raised single effective ground of appeal, which reads as under:- "1) The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(A)-XV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.22,74,423/- on account of unexplained cash credit and unexplained introduction in capital during the year us. 68 of the I.T. Act." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was field by the assessee on 03-02-2009, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....27,15,719/- as on 01-04-2007. Therefore, Section 68 of the Act was not applicable to the capital. After considering the submission of assessee Ld. CIT(A) estimated Rs.20 lakh as profit earned for 8 years and reduced the same from the capital of Rs.27,15,719/- and treated Rs.7,15,719/- as unexplained amount addition of which was upheld u/s. 68 of the Act. By Ld. CIT(A). Further, Ld. CIT(A) deletded the addition of Rs.48,90,822/- qua the unsecured lopan on the basis of remand report of the Assessing Officer. The Revenue feeling aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) has filed appeal and assessee came in CO for confirming the addition of Rs.7,15,719/-. 5. Now, Revenue is in appeal before us. Ld.SR-DR supported the order of Assessing Officer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addition retained by learned CIT(A) amounting to Rs.7,15,719/- mentioned in para 6 requires to be deleted in the interest of justice and fair play. 4. The appellant is a small assessee doing labour contract work and personally doing labour work, and unknown with the provisions of the Incometax Act and therefore considering all the circumstances, the additions of Rs.7,15,719/- retained by learned CIT(A) be deleted. 5. The appellant is filing this written submissions which may kindly be considered and justice be done to the appellant and oblige." We find that the Revenue has not given any breakup of the amount of Rs.22,74,423/- as how the same amount is arrived at on account of unexplained cash credit and unexplained introduction in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound that as per income declared each year then too the credit balance in the capital account could not have been more than Rs.20,51,888. The table given in the remand report is reproduced below: A.Y. Income declared as per income tax return Rs. 2000-01 206198 2001-02 161547 2002-03 218154 2003-04 201849 2004-05 289209 2005-06 237583 2006-07 182991 2007-08 331877 2008-09 222480 Total 205188 Further the AO stated that if average household expenditure is estimated at Rs.50,000 per year then for 10 years the expenditure comes to Rs.5,00,000 and if this is reduced from the capital of Rs.20,51,888, then capital comes to Rs.15,51,888. According to the AO considering the 10 ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs.7,15,719/- confirmed by learned CIT(A) be deleted. 4. Considering the remand report filed by learned A.O the total additions of Rs.27,15,719/- made by learned A.O and retained by learned CIT(A) of Rs.7,15,719/- both deserves to be deleted. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant, the appeal filed by the department be dismissed and cross objections filed by the appellant be allowed." 9. From the above, it is considered that only effective ground in the CO is with regard to confirmation of addition of Rs.7,15,719/-. 10. In written submission, the assessee has stated that assessee has been doing business for more than 12 years. Therefore capital balance is fully justified. It is submitted th....