TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 1355
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fference in the amount of purchases from M/s. Venkatrama Poultries Ltd. 4. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have deleted the entire addition of Rs. 1,02,620/- made by the AO in respect of the Fixed Deposits shown in appellant's personal balance sheet. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 26 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the said delay and keeping in view the reasons given therein, I am satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the delay on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Even the learned DR has not raised any objection in this regard. The said delay is therefore condoned and the appeal of the assessee is being disposed of on merit. 3. At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the assessee has not pressed ground no 2 and 4 raised by the assessee in this appeal. The same are accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 4. Apropos the issue involved in ground no 1, the relevant facts of the case are as follows. The assessee is an i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in ITA no 1903/Kol/2009. A copy of the said order is also placed by him on record and perusal of the same shows that a similar issue was decided by the Tribunal in the said case vide paragraph no 5 which reads as under: "We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT (A) while partly allowing the assessee's appeal held that the addition made by the AO on account of deposits in undisclosed bank accounts is directed to be restricted to the combined peak credit of Rs. 22,80,206.63 has observed as under: "4.6 I have perused the assessment under and the remand report. I have also considered the submission of the appellant and heard the Ld. AR. I have considered the rival submissions in so far as the applicability of section 69A in the case of the appellant is concerned. The fact of the matter is that the appellant has maintained two bank accounts which are admittedly not disclosed in the income tax return. There is no doubt that the deposits in the undisclosed bank accounts represent undisclosed income of the appellant, which shall be discussed, in detail, in the subsequent paragraphs. I find no legal infirmity in the order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ked out on the basis of amalgamated deposits and withdrawals of all the undisclosed bank accounts is the only correct method for determining the undisclosed income. I have considered the bank accounts and found that there are various credits as well as withdrawals in the bank accounts. It is an admitted fact that the bank accounts are undisclosed and therefore the deposits in the bank accounts are unexplained investment of the appellant. But, the amount invested at one point of time was withdrawn subsequently and was therefore, available for further deposits. There is no material on record to show that the amount withdrawn has been utilized by the appellant for any expenses or for any investment. And therefore, the peak credit of Rs. 22,80,206.63 would cover the total deposits and withdrawals in the bank accounts. The decision of the AO to add the aggregate deposits in the bank accounts, without giving benefit of withdrawals made from time to time is not justified. 4.7 I have carefully considered the various legal pronouncements relied upon by the appellant. They also support the contention of the appellant that only the combined peak credit of the undisclosed bank accounts should ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey withdrawn was being regularly being routed back into accounts through the medium of companies and in these circumstances there is well established system of taxing only the peak credit. He has, therefore, asked the AO to examine 7 the working of peak credit by the assessee, which has been confirmed by the AO vide letter dated 25.02.2003 and the Ld. CIT (A) has thereafter confirmed the addition to the extent of peak credit amounting to Rs. 23,92,582/- against the addition of Rs. 23,55,26,844/-. In his rival submissions, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that from the perusal of seized documents. It was absolutely apparent that the assessee was involved in providing accommodation entries to different beneficiaries and nothings contained in the seized register were nothing but the receipt of cash and deposit of cheques and other related entries to enable him to work as an entry operator. The Ld. Counsel has pointed out that the ld. CIT (A) has given a specific observation after perusing the relevant seized material tht entries contained in such seized material were nothing but entries made by the assessee for carrying out his activity as an entry operator and for this ....