TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 466
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 1,97,871/- on estimated basis @ 10.55% of the turnover of Rs. 18.75.554/- not belonging to the assessee. 2. It is therefore prayed that the above addition made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the assessment records are that assessee is an individual engaged in the business of textile and cheque discounting under the name and style of M/s Dhami Corporation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n unaccounted income of Rs. 96,000/- were made to the income of assessee and the income was assessed at Rs. 4,39,630/-. 3. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of assessee by deleting addition of Rs. 3,392/- and Rs. 96,000/- and sustained the addition of Rs. 1,97,871/-. 4. Aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. AR submitted following in relation to 1. addition of Rs.l,97,87l/- being estimated Net profit @ 10.55 % on turnover of Rs. 18,75,554/- in the impugned bank account : A) The appellant was engaged in the cheque discounting business. He has shown the cheque discounting income in the Return of income filed by him for the year under consideration.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t been taken cognizance by the learned ITO. Nor he stated to the AO regarding what was stated in the affidavit was wrong and baseless. F) The appellant had also filed the affidavit of Vishnukumar Agrawal who had stated and confirmed therein that he lended this account to the appellant for carrying out the cheque discounting business only. The said Vishnu kumar Agrawal had never operated the said bank account for his own business. He carried out his business of textile and yarn brokerage only. G) The learned ITO in para 4.3 of the AO stated a wrong fact that the said Vlshukumar Agrawal had confirmed that the account belonged to him and not to the appellant. On the contrary he confirmed that he lended the account to the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....during the course of the assessment. 6. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the orders of lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Assessee has challenged the action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,97,871/- which was calculated by the ld. Assessing Officer by applying 10.55% net profit rate on the total turnover shown at Rs. 18,75,554/- in the bank account operated by assessee but held in the name of Mr. Vishnu kumar Agarwal. We observe from the record that Vishnukumar Agarwal has given an affidavit submitting that he has lent the bank account to the assessee for operating his cheque discounting business to this account and assessee has also accepted during the cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as pertaining to his cheque discounting business and not of any other business cannot be accepted. From the perusal of the bank account, it is seen that the cheques have been deposited in regular intervals and money has been withdrawn by cash from that account. Had it been a genuine cheque discounting business then the amount withdrawn by cash would have been marginally less than the amount deposited by cheque to take care of the commission involved. However, in the case of the appellant, it is seen that there is no such co-relation between the cheque deposited and the cash withdrawn. For instance on 12th July, 2006 there are two deposits of Rs. 64,745/- and Rs. 65,000/- by cheque in this bank account but the cash withdrawn on that date is....