TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in 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 applica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eceipts @8.85% as the appellant had disclosed the profit on the disclosed contract receipts @8.85% which 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 316000 30.07.2013 100000 06.09.2013 1200000 13.09.2013 40O00 13.09.2013 30000 24.09.2013 20000 05.12.2013 300000 09.12.2013 23500 09.12.2013 1500 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 04.03.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e cash deposits of Rs. 81,03,734/- as apparently unexplained. To consider the entire amount of cash deposits of Rs. 81,03,734/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 (the AO has wrongly referred to section 68 for making the addition) would be too harsh and unreasonable. Since nothing has been brought on record to show that the cash deposits in the bank had come from some other sources, it is also in the interest of justice to presume that the same would have come 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8. At the outset, ld. AR did not press the legal issue raised by him and requested that for taxing on the profit calculated by the CIT(A) of Rs. 7,17,180/- should be taxed on normal rate of tax because the CIT(A) has accepted the receipts from business. Further the ld.AR submitted that the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable because tax effect involved in the appeal of Revenue is below the limited prescribed by the CBDT Circular No.17/2019, dated 8th August, 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 ....