TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1621
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 2,63,714/- inter alia making wholly arbitrary and unwarranted additions. The impugned order passed by the Id C.I.T.(Appeals) is wholly illegal and un-sustainable as the same has been passed without application of mind and utterly disregarding the submissions made and evidence produced by the assessee. 2. That the Id C.I.T.(Appeals) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of: i) Rs. 8,64,385/- being the alleged unexplained refundable security deposit received by the assessee from his employees at the time of joining the employment; and ii) Rs. 12,58,730/- on account of alleged unexplained loans. 3. That the finding of the Id C.I.T. (Appeals) that ample opportunity had been granted by the A.O. to furnish necessary evidence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. CIT (A) has erred in disregarding the submissions made and evidence produced before him by the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to pages 74 and 75 of the assessee's paper book, which is a copy of the assessee's written submissions dated 04.02.2013 filed before the Ld. CIT (A). These short written submissions are as follows:- "Dated, 04.02.2013 To, The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) G Block Shopping Complex Sector-20 Noida Sub: Filing of Submissions in the case of Shri Govind Singh PAN AGGPS 3549G A.Y.2008-09 Appeal No.458/744/2011-12/Noida. Dear Sir, Please refer as above we have some submission which are summerised as below. l. Point no.3 of the order passed by Ld. Asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zation to earn their bread and butter. 2. Point No.4 of the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer. The addition were made on adhoc basis is not proper and justified as all the bill, vouchers and related records were properly available and were shown to the Ld. Assessing Officer for their verification purposes. With the above submission we would request your honour to consider the facts and pass the order in favour of the assessee. Thanking You, For Pandey K M & Associates Chartered Accountants Sd/- CA K M Pandey" 3. The Ld. CIT (A), it is seen, confirmed the assessment order as follows:- "1. In the course of assessment proceedings A.O. observed that the assessee had taken unsecured loan of Rs. 21,23,115/-. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed for 27/12/2010 but once again assessee did not produce any creditors. In the light of above repeated non co-operation from the assessee the AO. asked the assessee to explain why unsecured loan of Rs. 12,58,730/- and earnest money of Rs. 8,64,385/- should not be added to the total income of the assessee. However, the assessee could not give reply up to the satisfaction of AO. According to A,O, mere submission of confirmatory letter and copy of ITR (that too in few cases) is not enough to shift the onus on to the AO., though these facts along with other related facts be relevant in establishing the genuineness of the above transactions. In the light of the facts of the case, the A.O. held that assessee has failed to prove the identity, cap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee has produced no evidence in support of above claim. From the above discussion and over all facts and circumstances of the case I hold that the assessee failed to establish genuineness of the transaction with above persons in the form of earnest money and unsecured loan claimed to have been received from as many as 75 persons. Accordingly addition of Rs. 21,23,115/- made by the A.O. to the total income of the assessee as unexplained income is confirmed. 2. During the assessment proceedings the A.O. found that as against net profit ratio of 4.43% reported by the assessee for immediately preceding year, the net profit in respect of current year under consideration has been shown at 1.73%, which is much lower than the preceding year. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Year 2008-09 and the Assessing Officer had not given proper opportunity to the assessee for causing the appearance of these employees/persons. This aspect of the matter has not been gone into by the Ld. CIT (A). The assessee has also submitted that the amounts had been refunded to the employees/persons at the time of full and final settlement and the addition made by the Assessing Officer includes an opening balance of ` 4,20,000/- from friends and relatives of the assessee, which does not relate to the year under consideration. It was also stated that the assessee had no balance outstanding of the employees/persons, as all the amount had been refunded to them and no person was, at the relevant time, traceable, having left the employment....