TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1751
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judication. 4. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 read as under : "2. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 26,68,525/- under section 69A of the Act on account of cash deposits in the bank account in utter disregard of the explanation rendered during the course of assessment proceedings which is arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not accepting the sales at Rs. 29,00,000/- made by the assessee only on the basis of the VAT return wherein lesser sales had been declared in utter disregard of the factual position which is arbitrary and unjustified." 5. The facts of the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ready discussed above, the sales are found to be Rs. 9,65,170/- and not 29 lacs. Further, the assessee tried to explain the source of deposit from withdrawals from account at Rs. 5,54,900/-, and advances from parties at Rs. 1,57,700/-. However, no evidence in support of the same were filed during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the A.O. rejected this part of the explanation. In the cash flow statement, the assessee has further shown increase in creditors at Rs. 30,000/-, addition of income of Rs. 1,40,000/- and depreciation of Rs. 500/-. The A.O. held that none of these heads actually generates any cashflow and, therefore, can't be considered as an explanation for source of the deposit made in the bank. The assessee has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....port and did not file copy of the VAT return before the Assessing Officer. No evidence was submitted with regard to sales or purchases made. The assessee made cash deposit of Rs. 37,73,695/- in his SB account, however, assessee failed to explain any source of such deposit in the bank account. Whatever contention was raised by assessee, were found to be false and fabricated. The claim of the assessee of estimated sales of Rs. 29 lacs was not supported by any evidence or material on record. The assessee in the IT Return and in the VAT returns, have not disclosed gross sales of Rs. 29 lacs. No evidence was filed before the authorities below in support of any of the explanation, therefore, source of the cash deposited in the bank account remain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r material to point out any error in the orders of authorities below, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders of authorities below. This ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 10. Ground No. 5 reads as under: "That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 80,000/- on account of alleged lesser labour job declared which is arbitrary & unjustified. 11. The facts of the case are that the assessee has shown estimated income from labour job at Rs. 20,000/- in the return of income whereas the same is declared at Rs. 1 lac in the VAT return. The Assessing Officer, therefore, added Rs. 80,000/- to the returned income on account of undisclo....