TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1460
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mined the bank accounts of the assessee and found that there were two bank accounts, one with M/s. Bank of India and other with Central Bank of India, which carried following cash/ clearing credits. (a) Cash credits in A/c No.8012101 10000477 with Bank of India: Rs.22,47,000 (b) Clearing credits in A/c No.801210110000477 with Bank of India; Rs.66,74,500 (c) Cash credits in A/c No.1010256476 with Central Bank of India: Rs. 8,47,295 (d) Clearing credits in A/c No.1010256476 with Central Bank of India: Rs. 4,60,717 Assessee was required to explain the source of the credits. Explanation of the assessee was that the credits were out of drawings from one M/s. Baba Foundations P. Ltd where he was a Managing Director. Ld. AO however did not accept the said explanation. According to him, the credits listed in the table above already excluded cheques received from M/s. Baba Foundations P. Ltd. As per the ld. AO account copies of the assessee in the books of M/s. Baba Foundations P. Ltd were verified and such exclusions correctly done by him. He held that the credits aggregating Rs. 1,02,29,512/- was unexplained and an addition was made u/s.69 of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ented receipts from such business. Assessee also argued before ld. CIT(A) that a revised computation of income, admitting income of Rs. 1,24,400/- for business, was filed before ld. AO during the course of original proceedings. As per the assessee such income was computed at 8% of the gross receipts in contract activity. Ld. CIT(A) sought a remand report from the ld. AO. Ld. AO and in the remand report, ld. AO stated as under:- ''"A) The revised computation of income flied on 29.12.2011 was not considered as it was computation u/s.44AD that too for business income which was not at all originally shown in return fled on 21.05.2010. The same was processed u/s. 143(l) on 09.11.2011. Had there been no scrutiny proceedings, no revised statements of income were to have filed. This revised statement is after thought. The issue, to be considered here, is explained credits in banks, repayment of loans without explaining the source for repayment In these circumstances, it is submitted that it was not ignorance on the part of AO to consider revised memo but non compliance on the part of the assessee to furnish evidences in support of claim during the assessment proceedings wherein th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns P. Ltd, which reflected working capital of 23% of the turnover. After excluding Rs. 4,00,000/- considered for addition as initial investment in an business, an addition of Rs. 24,00,000/- was made as unexplained investment in working capital. Aggregate total income of the assessee as computed by the ld. CIT(A) read as under:- a) Income from civil construction business @ 8%of total receipts of Rs. 1,42,54,512/- Rs. 11,40,360 b) Unexplained cash investment in business (being peak investment admitted by appellant) Rs. 4,00,000 c) Unexplained investment in working capital (Rs.28 lakhs less cash investment of Rs. 4 lakhs) Rs.24,00,000 Total undisclosed income from civil construction business Rs. 39,40,360 8. Based on the above findings, ld. CIT(A) also proceeded to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the sum of Rs. 39,40,360/- which he considered to be concealed income of the assessee. 9. Now before us, assessee in its appeal against the quantum additions has raised five grounds. Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that he was not pressing ground No.1. 10. Vide its ground 2, assessee assails the addit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in business''. 15. It is clear that assessee itself had admitted a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as peak investment in bank account which was not disclosed. Having done so, assessee cannot turn around and say that such addition ought not have been made by the ld. CIT(A). Assessee cannot plead for telescoping of admitted income with what is found by the Assessing authority to be undisclosed income. We thus do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). Grounds 4 and 5 of the assessee stand dismissed. 16. Now we take up the appeal of the assessee against levy of penalty u/s.271(1) (c) of the Act. Its plea is that there was no concealment, since the income was arrived at estimated basis. 17. We have heard the rival contentions carefully. It is true that the income of the assessee was arrived on an estimated basis. However, assessee in its original return of income had shown only income from salary and income from house property and never revealed that it was doing any business, much less a civil contract business. It also did not show any income from such business. It was only when the ld. AO brought to the notice of the assessee the credits in its bank acc....