TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 53
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ole ground of appeal raised by the assessee in quantum appeal (ITA No. 445/Gau/2019) is against the action of Ld. CIT(A) enhancing the total income by exercising his powers u/s 251 of the Act by making addition of Rs. 85,89,312/- u/s 68 of the Act. 3. Brief facts as noted by the AO is that the assessee had filed return of income showing total income of 2,35,410/-. Later the case was selected through CASS in respect of cash deposit for examination. The AO notes that the assessee has stated that he is into the business of dealing potato/onion and grocery in retail in small scale and has income therefrom besides income from plying of a mini truck. The assessee had shown net income from business of plying mini truck u/s 44AE of the Act at Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the gross-income from the mini truck to the tune of Rs. 75,81,840/- which in the average comes to Rs. 6,31,280/- monthly and the assessee has offered only Rs. 90,000/- as tax on presumptive basis u/s 44AE of the Act, which fact [i.e, Rs. 75,81,840/- from mini-truck]the AO did not believe. It is inferred that AO assumed that this income from mini truck was an afterthought to cover/explain the cash deposit in the bank account. Therefore, according to him (it is inferred), if the gross-income from mini truck is kept aside, then it can be seen that the assessee has suppressed the profit from potato and onion etc. to the tune of Rs. 72,00,000/-. Therefore he did not accept the assessee's sale proceed from potato/onion at Rs. 18,17,625/-, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the aforesaid order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has preferred an appeal against the quantum assessment which is numbered as ITA No. 445/Gau/2019, and against the penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) appeal is numbered as ITA NO. 446/Gau/2019 [The AO passed penalty order u/s 271(1)(c ) by order first vide order dated 17.08.2017 at Rs. 90,000/- and in addition to the said penalty, the Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned penalty order dated 23.09.2019 after computation of it made by AO levied Rs. 26,34,138/-also]. Both the appeals are heard together. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We note that the assessee has filed return of income showing total income of Rs. 2,331,410/-. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny through C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts from the mini truck (Camper) which was deposited to the tune of Rs. 75,81,840/- which explanation was not found to be acceptable to him because according to him, that will tantamount to an average income to the tune of Rs. 6,31,807/- monthly which is un-believable and that too when the assessee has offered only Rs. 90,000/- on presumptive basis u/s 44AE of the Act from such an income yielding truck; further according to the AO the assessee could have derived from freight of Rs. 5 Lacs this income of Rs. 90,000/- therefore he did not accept the contention of the assessee and therefore he was of the opinion (implied by us) that the income/ gross freight amount of Rs. 75,81,840/- was an after-thought to explain/cover the deposit of cash in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erned we note that presumptive taxation u/s 44AE of the Act is for the assessee who owns not more than ten (10) good carriages and is engaged in the business of plying/hiring vehicle of such goods carriages wherein the business income from the same is chargeable to the tax under the head 'profit and gains of the business' or profession shall be deemed to be the income of the profit and gains from all the goods carriages owned by him when it is computed as per sub-section (2) of Section 44AE of the Act. Here in the present case, the assessee has claimed to have received freight to the tune of Rs. 75,81,840/- which fact has not been believed/accepted by the AO on the reasons discussed (supra) and the Ld. CIT(A) has based his disbelief on the ....