AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act" for short]for the Asst.Year 2010-11 and 2011- 12 respectively. 2. It was common ground that the issue involved in both the appeals was identical emanating in the backdrop of identical set of facts. Both the appeals were therefore taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. ITA No.886/Ahd/2023 for A.Y.2010-11 is taken as a lead case, and our decision in this appeal will apply mutatis mutandis to other appeal also. 3. ITA No.886/Ahd/2023 : Assesses appeal A.Y 2010-11 4. Grounds raised in the appeal are as under: "1. The Appellant is an Individual having Permanent Account Number ANLPP7193F and engaged in the business of trading in scrap tyres and tubes. The Appellant has been en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he amount of cash deposited in the bank account of the Appellant. The Assessment Order was finalised u/s. 143(3) rws 147 of the Act vide order dated 18.10.2017. Further, the said assessment order was rectified vide order u/s. 154 of the Act dated 27.10.2017 stating that the bank stated as Axis Bank should be read as ICICI Bank. It may be mentioned that the fact that details were required for the deposits made to the ICICI Bank Ltd. Was known the Appellant for the first time at the time of receipt of the rectification order. During the entire assessment proceedings, it was duly stated that details for the cash deposits to Axis Bank were to be submitted. The Appellant could not submit the details of the bank account which were not directed to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplied. It is to be considered that the AO did not bring any material to prove that the business receipts of the Appellant was in excess to what was declared in the return of income. It was merely presumed by the learned AO that the entire amount of cash deposit tantamounted to business income of the Assessee. c. That, as per provisions of Section 44AD(4) of the Act, the Appellant is required to disclose profits at 8% / 6% for the subsequent 5 years which was not done was the Appellant. The learned AO failed to acknowledge that the provision of Section 44AD(4) of the Act that the Assessee is required to disclose profits as per Section 44AD for next 5 years was brought into effect from Finance Act 2016. 7. In the remand rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also before us, the same is also dismissed. 6. The only effective grounds therefore are ground no.3 to 5, in which the solitary issue raised relates to the addition made to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act amounting to Rs. 11,34,399/-. A perusal of the order of the AO reveals that the said amount pertained to cash deposits in the saving bank account of the assessee during the impugned year, which remained unexplained, was added to the income of the assessee. 7. Before the AO none came present on behalf of the assessee and no explanation was offered on these cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. Accordingly, the entire cash deposits was treated as unexplained and added to the income of the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me from which he returned the tax under section 44AD of the Act. 9. The ld.CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and the remand report of the AO, appreciated the objections made by the AO in his remand proceedings, and upheld the addition as a consequence made to the income of the assessee by the AO. 10. Having gone through the orders of the Revenue authorities below, we are of the view that this is a most casual and arbitrary order passed by the authorities below on a serious aspect of assessment of income of an assessee, on which he was burdened with the liability to pay tax. There could not have been a more lax attitude exhibited by the Revenue authorities in framing an assessment, as in the present case. The rea....