2017 (3) TMI 681

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appeal fee could not be remitted on that day. 02-04-2016 and 03-04-2016 being public holidays, the appeal could be filed only on 04-04-2016. Thus, there was a delay of three days. Considering the prayer and objections of the Ld.DR, the three days delay is condoned and appeal is admitted. 2. Briefly stated, assessee is engaged in the business of retail trade in liquor. He filed return of income of Rs. 3,20,180/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) has examined assessee's transactions and found that assessee did not comply with the direction for production of books of account, therefore, invoked the ITAT order in another case and estimated the profit at 25% on the purchases and income was estimated at Rs. 5,50,715/-. In addition to that, AO a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....come being not less than the returned income. Assessee is aggrieved on the above direction. With reference to the deposits in the bank account, after considering assessee's submissions that there are withdrawals in the earlier year to an extent of Rs. 8 Lakhs (drawn on 22-03-2008) and the payments to AP Beverage Corporation are fully recorded in the books of account, the Ld.CIT(A) gave a finding that the sequence of transactions is that deposits were followed by withdrawals and not withdrawals by the deposits. Therefore, the entire cash deposits made in the bank account represents the suppressed income of the appellant. The addition was accordingly confirmed. Assessee is also aggrieved on the above confirmation of the amount. 4. It was t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....   13-06-2008 4,81,192 -- 5,00,000 (18,808)   07-07-2008 (18,808) 2,00,000 -- 1,81,192   15-07-2008 1,81,192 2,50,000 -- 4,31,192   24-07-2008 4,31,192 -- 4,00,000 31,192   29-07-2008 31,192 -- 50,000 (18,808)   06-08-2008 (18,808) 3,00,000 -- 2,81,192   13-08-2008 2,81,192 -- 15,000 2,66,192   27-08-2008 2,66,192 -- 15,000 2,51,192   02-09-2008 2,51,192 -- 50,000 2,01,192   11-09-2008 2,01,192 -- 2,00,000 1,192   19-12-2008 1,192 60,000 -- 61,192     5. Ld.DR, however, reli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... indicates that the factor of excise rental has been compensated by the higher sale price as can be seen from the trading results. Thus, argument on payment of excise rental at higher rate does not stand. As seen from the order of the CIT(A), Ld.CIT(A) followed the Co-ordinate Bench decision and I am of the view that assessee has not made out any case to differ from the estimation of profit at 5% on cost of stock put to sale, subject to income from the business is not less than the profit earned as per the P&L A/c. 7. With reference to the cash deposits in the bank account, it was the contention that assessee has withdrawn an amount of Rs. 8 Lakhs on 22-03-2008, which was available for deposit subsequently made. Assessee also furnished a....