AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 178
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment order the Assessing Officer has noted from the impounded material that the assessee had carried-out sand business in the Reach No.18. The assessee had deposed that the income earned was Rs.30,000/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.30,000/- to the total income. 3. Being aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and it was submitted before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that investment made by the assessee was Rs. 30,000/-, but the Assessing Officer took it as income earned and submitted that addition may be deleted. However, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) he has not submitted any details. Keeping in view of the business carried-out by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was of the opinion that estimation of income of Rs. 30,000/- from the sand business is reasonable. Accordingly, confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Even before me, assessee was not able to substantiate any evidence that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is on higher side. In view of the above, I find no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed. ITA No. 538/VIZ/2014 6. Grounds No. 1 & 2 are general in nature, hence, no adjudication is required. Ground No.3 relating to addition in respect of sand business to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has invested in the Ravulapalem sand reach to the extent of 25% share holding and towards the first instalment, an amount of Rs. 3,87,500/- was invested during the year. The Assessing Officer also enquired with Sri Nallamilli Ramachandra Reddy, who confirmed such an investment. He also deposed that assessee earned income of Rs. 2 lakhs from sand business as the assessee had the advantage of own lorries. Based on the deposition of assessee and also Sri Nallamilli Ramachandra Reddy, the Assessing Officer assessed an amount of Rs. 3,87,500/- towards investment in sand business and Rs. 2 lakhs income earned from the sand business during the year. 7. On appeal, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) restricted the addition to Rs. 1,50,000/-. Before me, the assessee was not able to point out that the addition conf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dition in respect of income from sand business to the tune of Rs. 4,02,413/-. During the course of survey and after enquiries, it is revealed that the assessee had invested to the extent of 17.5% share amounting to Rs. 4,37,500/- towards first instalment in the Ravulapalem Sand Reach bid by Kopella Mallikharjuna Rao shows that he was only a name lender and worked as a clerk with the assessee. He also deposed that the assessee's share was to the tune of 40% and the remaining shares held by Goluguri Muni Reddy and others. The Assessing Officer also noted substantial credits in the assessee's bank account to the tune of Rs. 50,30,160/- and the same was considered as receipts from sand business and with reference to which the Assessing Officer estimated the assessee's income at 8% amounting to Rs. 4,02,413/-. With regard to investment of Rs. 4,37,500/- in the sand business, the Assessing Officer did not make separate addition as he has allowed telescoping with reference to earlier year income. 12. Before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it was contended that the Assessing Officer was not justified in taking the credits in the bank account as representing receipts from sand busi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iven any explanation in respect of source of initial investment. In view of the above, addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified. I find no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed. 15. Ground No.5 relating to addition towards unexplained investment in land to the tune of Rs. 4,12,665/-. In the assessment order the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has purchased 300.57 sq.yds. of plot on 20/12/2004 for a consideration of Rs. 3,70,000/- in the name of his son Shri Medapati Bala Balaji, who is a student aged about 19 years without any source of income. The assessee in his deposition dated 23/12/2008 stated that the investment was made by the assessee out of his business income. As the source for investment was not explained, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 4,12,655/- which included expenses towards stamp duty and registration charges. 16. On appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it was submitted that assessee's son Shri Medapati Bala Balaji is on the rolls of ITO, W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs.1.5 lakhs towards business income from sand and also investment of Rs.4,31,250/- confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Even before me, the assessee has not able to point out any error committed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and not filed any material to substantiate that the additions made by the authorities below are not correct. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that no interference is required in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed. 19. Ground No.4 relating to income from operation of Ex-210 to the tune of Rs. 6,69,314/-. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted from the impounded material and deposition of the assessee that the assessee had earned Rs. 15,03,600/- from Ex-210 machine during the year. After considering the assessee's claim for depreciation and interest payment, the Assessing Officer brought to tax net income of Rs. 7,69,314/- as against which the assessee had offered income of Rs.1lakh and the difference of Rs. 6,69,314/- was subjected to assessment. 20 On appeal before the Commissioner of Income ....