TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (6) TMI 905
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me in case of unexplained cash credits and deleting the rest of the addition when the CIT(A) has taken into consideration a detailed cash flow statement for the entire year which was furnished before him and a detailed cash book of the assessee for the year (para 4 of the CIT(A) order), which evidences were not placed before the AO, and effectively, CIT(A) has admitted additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A and the AO has not been given an opportunity to examine the same by the CIT(A) in violation of Rule 46A. 2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of unexplained cash credits only to the extent of Rs. 1,49,110/- on the ground that peak credit method is the correct method of determining the income in case of unexpl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing that the amount of Rs. 12,17,188/- was used by the assessee for depositing it as income from other sources, the AO added the entire credits made in the bank account, amounting to ` 12,17,188/-, as the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. 3. By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition to the extent of Rs. 10,68,078/-, while confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 1,49,110/-. 4. Aggrieved, the Department has filed the present appeal. 5. Challenging the impugned order, the ld. DR has argued that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of unexplained cash credits only to the extent of Rs. 1,49,110/-; that the ld. CIT(A) erred in observing that the peak credit method was the correc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and have perused the material on record. The assessee is engaged in manufacturing of electrical components. During the year, he had made sales of Rs. 19,33,479/-, declaring profit of Rs. 15,14,940/- and a g.p. ratio of 17.06%. The assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 12,17,188/- in his Savings Bank Account with Kotak Mahindra Bank. Before the AO, he submitted that he was maintaining his cash credit account with Central Bank of India, Bhagirathi Palace Branch; that since the bank was situated far away from his business place and it was not possible to carry cash to and from his factory at Noida, he had maintained a bank account with Kotak Mahindra Bank with at par facility. During the year he had used his bank account with deposit and collect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... three sums amounting to Rs. 30,000/-, in March, 1963. The AO added the amount of Rs. 30,000/- as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. The Tribunal directed the deletion of this amount, observing that the sum was more than covered by the withdrawals of Rs. 50,000/- in certain other accounts made barely two months earlier and the deposits in which accounts had also been brought to tax as income from undisclosed sources. The Hon'ble High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal. 13. "Chetan Dass" (supra), it is seen, was relied on in "ITO v. Mahesh Kumar Jayanti Lal Vora" (supra). 14. In "Bhaiyalal Shyam Behari v. CIT"(supra), it was held that in order to raise the plea of peak credit, the actual foundation has to be laid by....