2014 (4) TMI 1018

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... PNB bank account as belonging to assessee against claimed as of HUF and erred in adding the same U/s. 68 and 69. 2. That the credits relates to retail trade of HUF on which, at the most, the profit should be calculated U/s. 44 AF being 5% of turnover of t.16,75,0001-, which profit calculates Rs.83,750/- 3. That without prejudice, to G. N. 2, alternatively, it should have been treated as retail turnover of assessee and profit should be calculated at Rs.83,750/- @5% of turnover of Rs. 16,75,000/-. 4. That without prejudice, even on presuming these credits as un-explained, the addition should not exceed by the figure of peak of such credit. 5. That no interest U/s. 234 B should have been levied." 3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ase of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36 (Del); decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Shri Kamal Kumar Bhola in ITA No. 5781/2010 dated 28.09.2011; decision of Hon'ble M.P. High Corut in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Rajeev Shukla 296 ITR 743 and decision of ITAT Delhi 'C' Bench in ITA No.4183/Del/2010 dated 12.11.2010. On the basis of these decisions relied by the AR, it has been contended that when there is a small deposit during the whole year in the bank account of the assessee, then total amount of deposits during the financial year cannot be treated as income in the hands of assessee. At the most, the peak of Rs. 1,53,123 may be taken as income of the assessee....