TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 597
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the addition of Rs.27,04,965/- made by the AO, to the extent of Rs.24,02,815/-, first by arbitrarily treating a sum of Rs.3,00,35,190/-, as found credited in the banking account maintained with ICICI Bank Ltd., as unaccounted turnover, and then by estimating the net profit at the rate of 8% on the same; 2. Confirming the disallowance of Rs.40,89,100/- made by the AO by invoking the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act." 2. The assessee, in the present case, is an individual who is engaged in the business of trading of Old Bardan. She filed her return of income for the year under consideration originally on 26.07.2010 declaring a total income of Rs.2,44,000/-. On the basis of information received regarding the undisclosed bank acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se & sales and it was not a case of consignment transactions. He also found that the purchase and sale transactions reflected in the relevant bank account were not properly recorded in the relevant books of account of the assessee. Keeping in view the same as well as other deficiencies noticed by him, the Assessing Officer rejected the books of account of the assessee and proceeded to estimate the income of the assessee from business by applying a net profit rate of 8% to the total turnover of Rs.3,38,12,073/- including the turnover of Rs.3,00,35,190/- as reflected in the bank account of the assessee maintained with ICICI Bank, Bhavnagar. He accordingly determined the business income of the assessee at Rs.27,04,965/- as against Rs.3,02,150/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces of the case I am inclined to partly agree with the contention of the appellant. It is seen that the contention of the appellant regarding balance in ICICI Bank account having been included in 'Sundry Debtors' is found to be correct. Though no details of the above bank account are mentioned in the relevant column of ITR asking for bank details but it is seen that as per the Balance Sheet as on 31/03/2010, balance in the ICICI Bank account is Rs. 7,79,696/-. It is further seen that this amount has been included in the amount of 'Sundry Debtors' shown at Rs. 25,96,082/- shown in column. 3(a)(ii) of Schedule "Part ABalance Sheet.' Thus, it is held that the A.O was not justified in rejecting books of accounts of the appellant on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs.27,04,965/- is upheld." 5. The learned CIT(A) also confirmed the addition of Rs.40,89,100/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40A(3) of the Act for the following reasons given in his impugned order:- "It is seen that during the assessment proceedings, the A.O noted that the appellant had made various payments in cash or by bearer cheques which was in violation of provision u/s. 40A(3) of the Act. The A.O noted that total payments of Rs. 40,89,100/- have been paid in violation of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. After giving an opportunity to the appellant to give explanation and not accepting her explanation, the A.O made addition of Rs. 40,89,110/- u/s. 40A(3) of the Act. The appellant submitted that once the A.O ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hase and sales of the assessee's business were not properly reflected in the books of account of the assessee as found by the authorities below. At the time of hearing before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee has not been able to bring anything on record to rebut or controvert this finding of fact recorded by the authorities below. Although he has claimed that the entire credits reflected in the said bank account did not represent sales of the assessee, there is no evidence produced by him to support and substantiate this claim. He has not furnished any details regarding the nature of transactions reflected in the bank account of the assessee to show that the credits reflected in the said bank account did not entirely represent the s....