TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 667
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee on 17th March, 2017 which was served on him on 22nd March, 2018. The assessee filed return in response to notice u/s. 148 on 14th September, 2017 declaring the total income at Rs. 2,20,020/-. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO asked the assessee to prove the source of cash deposit of Rs. 29,55,045/-. The assessee submitted that he is engaged in the business of M/s. Verma Jewellers & Sons at 240, Subhashpuri, Kankerkhera, Meerut. It was submitted that the assessee has three bank accounts with PNB, ICICI Bank and Allahabad Bank and the cash has been deposited out of sale of jewellery on commission basis and through j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 1 the appellant has challenged the proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act by stating that as per the assessment order the AO has not mentioned whether he has taken approval from Pr. CIT, Meerut which is the competent authority to approve the issuance of Notice u/s. 148 of the' IT Act for the said assessment year 2010-11. The AR states, "it appears that notice issued u/s. 148 of the IT Act 1961 without approval of Pr. CIT, Meerut, therefore Notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is bad in law." I have perused the assessment record and I find that on page 5 & 6 of the assessment record the approval of Pr. CIT, Meerut has been taken on 8 March 2017 and thereafter notice u/s. 148 of the IT Act has been issued on 17.03.2017 and the same has been se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessment order where in the AO has stated that, "during the year assessee has made heavy amounts of cash deposits in the account with PNB, some of the heavy deposits are under: The sum of sample quoted by the AO comes to Rs. 16,70,000/-. Whereas, I have personally examined the total amount deposited in PNB S/B A/C which comes to Rs. 29,85,045/-. The assessee has further deposited Rs. 30,000/- in having loan with Allahabad Bank, Meerut Cantt. Branch. Thus, the argument of the ld. AR regarding confusion on account of deposits in PNB savings account of the assessee is totally misconstrued on facts. The sum and substance of the matter is that the appellant has not followed the provisions of section 139(9)(f) of the IT Act and has not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the cash deposit and withdrawals were made by the assessee for the business purposes. The A.O. has not considered the reply of the assessee and made addition of entire cash deposit in the bank account is bad in law and CIT(A) is in error in confirming the addition after rejection net profit, which is not according to law. 3. That the assessee has shown total income at the rate of 5 percent on the gross receipts of Rs. 55,82,140/- from Verma Jewellers and shown net profit of Rs. 2,79,107/- in the income tax return. However A.O. has made entire cash deposit which was part of cash receipts deposited in the bank account. Therefore, the A.O. is in error in making addition of Rs. 29,58,045/- treated as unexplained income and CIT(A) is in error....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oceedings is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, apart from stating that the AO had not supplied him copy of the approval of PCIT, could not point out any other defect in the reopening of the assessment. In my opinion, the assessee could not substantiate as to how the reopening is bad in law. Therefore, in absence of any merit in the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the ground challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings is dismissed. 8.1. So far as the cash deposit of Rs. 29,55,045/- is concerned, I find, the assessee has submitted that he is opting for presumptive tax u/s. 44AF and the cash withdrawal on different occasions have been re-deposited in the sand bank account to show higher turnover for....