TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 26
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced in ITA 1535/CHD/2018 would fully apply to the facts, circumstances and the prayer in ITA 1536/CHD/2018 also. 3. The ld. AR inviting attention to the facts submitted that the assessee was a labour contractor who was called upon to explain the deposits made in his saving bank account No. 5ASB14031447 in Centurial Bank of Punjab Ltd. at Morinda Rs. 12,32,500/- in 2007-08 assessment year and Rs. 12,20,000/- in 2008-09 assessment year. It was submitted that the assessee accepted that these emanated from contract work which had been omitted to be disclosed. Accordingly, it was requested that these amounts be taxed @ 8% since these were contract receipts. The explanation offered, it was submitted, was not accepted. Before the CIT(A) part rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iven and even today, there is no evidence on record on the basis of which it is being pleaded that the matter may be remanded. 7. The ld. AR addressing the departmental objection invited attention to the fact that the assessee was a small time labour contractor and may not have understood the need for placing supporting evidences on record. 8. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. For the sake of completeness, it is appropriate to bring out the fact that before the AO in the quantum proceedings, the assessee did not file any supporting evidences to show that these were contract receipts. Even before the CIT(A), the assessee in the quantum proceedings failed to file supporting evidences. The relev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hereunder: "5. ...................... " the appellant had declared gross receipts of Rs. 1,19,400/- only in the return of income and so the explanation of the Appellant that the amount of Rs. 12,20,000/- was contract receipts does not hold water, since the amount is too large to have been omitted from receipts. Therefore, these cash deposits cannot be treated as contract receipts and no profit rate can be applied to these deposits. However, there is substance in the argument of the Ld. Counsel that benefit of withdrawals should be given. A perusal of the cash flow statement submitted by the Ld. Counsel reveals that the amounts withdrawn have been deposited in the bank within the same month and so it would be appropriate to tax the peak a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le to give any evidence in support of his claim that the amount represents his business receipts. The Assessing Officer treated the entire cash deposit of Rs. 12,32,500/- a s undisclosed income of the appellant. The Ld. CIT (Appeals), agreed with the stand of the Assessing Officer while confirming the addition but gave benefit for cash withdrawal treating it to be redeposited and treated the peak deposits of Rs. 10,42,500/- as income of the appellant. 4.2.1 In the present appeal, the Ld. AR has again reiterated that deposits represent assessee's contractual receipts and profit should be estimated u/s 44 AD of the Act. The appellant has not been able to prove in any manner whatsoever that the bank deposits represented business receipts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he additions have been confirmed, levy of penalty is not automatic. It is equally well settled that the explanation offered in the penalty proceedings has to be considered in the context of the penal provisions and the assessee can well assail the order relying on arguments and facts which may not have been canvassed in the quantum proceedings. However, in the facts of the present case, the legal arguments advanced are not applicable as the penalty has not been levied on estimated addition nor is it a case of difference of opinion, it is purely and simply a case where the stated claim that these were contract receipts has remained unproved. In the said background being live to the departmental concerns that the deposits in the bank account ....