TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... law, ld. CIT(A) is not justified with his decision in restricting the addition to Rs. 7,17,180/- instead of Rs. 1,29,44,999/- made by the AO u/s.69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 towards unexplained cash deposits. 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. C1T(A) is not correct to estimate the income at the rate of 8.85% of the unexplained cash deposits when the unexplained cash deposits has not been ascertained if the same represent assessee's contract receipts. 4. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) is not correct with his decision placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Courts which may not be applicable to the instant case as in this case the facts are different. 5. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h was not disputed by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 4. That, the appellant craves to alter, amend, modify or add any other ground that may be considered necessary in the course of appeal proceeding. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 05.10.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 3,06,550/-. Various statutory notices were issued to the assessee for completing the scrutiny assessment but the assessee did not appear on the said date even till completion of the assessment, therefore, the AO completed the assessment u/s.144 of the Act, 1961. The case of the assessee selected for scrutiny through CASS to verify "cash deposits in savings bank accounts is more than the turnover". On perusal of 26AS statement it w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00 21.12.2013 150000 16.01.2014 200000 27.01.2014 50000 19.03.2014 600000 25.03.2014 50000 Axis Bank 914020000182919 11.01.2014 100000 16.01.2014 100000 28.02.2014 350000 04.03.2014 225000 04.03.2014 150000 19.03.2014 298500 TOTAL: 12944999 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was given many opportunities for explaining the cash deposit but he did not appear, therefore, the entire deposit was added as unexplained investment to the total income of the assessee. Further it was also observed by the AO from the savings bank ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the contract business of the assessee. In the case of RR Carrying Corporation reported in 126 TTJ (CTK) 240, the Hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT has held that in cases of undisclosed turnover, to tax the entire turnover as income of the assessee would be too highhanded and unreasonable and, therefore, only the profit embedded in the turnover can be taxed. The same view has been taken by the Hon'ble MP High Court in the case of CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar (2004) 186 CTR 419, The Honble Sujairat High Court has also held in the case of President Industry that in case of suppression of receipts, the total receipts cannot be added to the total income and only the profit embedded in the gross receipts should be taxed by applying the profit r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 2019. 9. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the order of AO. 10. After hearing both the sides and perusing the entire material available on record and the orders of authorities below, we noticed that the CIT(A) considered the bank deposits in the assessee's bank account as contract receipts and he has applied @8.85% profit on the same as is stated supra. Therefore, as per our considered opinion, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). Ld.AR before us submitted that the additions sustained by the CIT(A) should be taxed at normal rate of tax, is accepted because the receipts from business and profession has been considered as business income. If the receipts have been considered as trading receipts, the tax should be charged....