2017 (12) TMI 737

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the assessee are as under :- "1. Whether Ld. CIT(A) was just i fied, by upholding the addition of Rs. 16,54,000/ - on account of cash deposit in Bank, even after admitting the issue that the deposit was out of the sale proceed of Fabric Trading Business. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was just i fied by not accepting the appellant plea of having business activity despite of fact Assessee submitted revised computation of income by declaring business profit @ 8%, without proper considering the submission in right prospective and evidences." 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 18th May, 2009 declaring taxable income of Rs. 89,504/-. The case was selected for s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;s submission in this regard and find that in the return of income filed by the appellant, he has not shown any such business income whatsoever. Further, the appellant has also failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to establish that he has undertaken the impugned business activity such as address of place from where impugned trading was conducted, purchase book, sale book, trade license, transportation details, communication with the clients, details of buyers and sellers etc. Moreover, the appellant has also failed to furnish complete cash flow statement so as to explain the nature and source of cash deposits in his bank account. As such, for want of evidence I am not inclined to accept the appellant's plea of having carried out ab....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... For the above proposition, he relied on the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Perlos Telecommunication vs. ACIT vide ITA No. 1037/Mds/2013 order dated 18.11.2013 for assessment year 2008-09. 10. Ld. DR on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that since the assessee did not declare the income from fabric trading in the original return, now he can not explain the bank deposits as sale proceeds of such fabric trading. He submitted that the CIT(A) has given justifiable reasons for upholding the addition. Therefore, the same should be upheld. He also relied on the decision of the Hon'bel Bombay High Court in the case of Arun Kr. J. Muchhala vs. CIT vide ITA no. 363/2015 orde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....June, 2015, to the AO a copy of which is placed at page 11 of the paper book and which reads as under : "Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Room No.312, 3rd Floor 'B' Block, Civic Centre, New Delhi Telephone No. (O):-23213601, 23212593 F.No.CIT(A)21/Remand Report/2015-16/ Dated: 10/06/2015 Income Tax Officer Ward 70(4) D-Block, Civic Centre New Delhi. Sub : Appeal No. 3361/11-12 in the case of Sh. Raj Kumar, A.Y. 2009-10- Sir, Kindly find enclosed the broad submissions and an application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of I.T. Rule 1962 filed by the AR of the appellant for your comments thereon. Your comments shoul....