AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 227
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the business of trading in steel tubes and pipes in the name of "Nav Bharat Steel Tubes". Assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 28.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 3,27,553/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter, the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 31.12.2013 and the total taxable income was determined at Rs. 61,79,610/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 11.09.2015 in Appeal No.287/13-14 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. "That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of AO without appreciating the fact that by aggregating the credits which are explained by debit entries, the assessee is made to suffer tax on double additions instead of only the actual income of the assessee which cannot be permissible. 7. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of AO of addition of Rs. 58,52,055/- by aggregating all credit entries instead of directing for peak theory principle as in the present facts and circumstances there are almost simultaneous cash deposits and cash withdrawals specially under the circumstances when AO has come to a conclusion that explanation offered by assessee lacks credibility and not genuine and inspite of the assessee i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aggregating to Rs. 58,52,055/-. The assessee was therefore asked to explain the source of cash deposit with the evidences. AO after examining the evidences and after considering the statement of the Assessee recorded u/s 131 of the Act noted that assessee had made cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 58,52,055/-. AO noted that with respect to the explanation of the assessee about the source of cash deposits there was inconsistency in the assessee's explanation as per his statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act and the affidavits of the persons who had deposited in cash in the assessee's bank account that was filed by the Assessee. AO after considering the facts concluded that no proper explanation about the cash deposits has been submitted by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10 & 11 of the paper book. He further submitted that for A.Y. 2012-13, the assessment of the Assessee was reopened u/s 148 for the reason that Rs. 10,00,000/- was deposited in cash in the Bank account of the assessee and that assessee was non-filer. He submitted that AO after examining the business of the assessee accepted the returned income and no addition of the entire cash deposits were made. He pointed to the copy of the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w. 143(3) which is placed at page 16 of the paper book. He therefore, submitted that once the business of the assessee has remained similar in earlier and subsequent year, then the AO was not justified in making the addition of the entire cash deposits in the bank. He submitted that Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent proceedings for A.Y. 2009-10 assessee had given similar explanation and the activities performed by him and the AO in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) had made addition of only the peak deposits of cash. Before us, Learned AR has also pointed to the fact that for A.Y. 2012-13, the case of the assessee was re-opened for the reasons that it was noted that there were cash deposits in assessee's bank account and the assessee being a non-filer. We find that in the assessment order passed for A.Y. 2012-13 u/s 147 r.w. 143(3), the income declared by the assessee has been accepted and no addition on account of undisclosed source u/s 69A of the Act has been made. In such a situation following the principle of consistency, we are of the vie....