TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 405
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AY 2018-19 dated 05.02.2025, which have been passed against the assessment orders u/s 144 and 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 24.09.2019 and 25.03.2023, respectively. Since the issues are common, both the appeals were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. I.T.A. Nos.: 160 /CTK/2025; AY 2017-18: "1. That the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) is unjust and not in reference to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the appellants turnover for the period was Rs 67,00,000/-. The LAO has estimated the profit @ 8% on Rs. 45,45,061/- and for the balance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te of the income of the assessee and though arbitrariness can't be avoided in such an estimate and the same must not be capricious but should have a reasonable nexus to the available material and circumstances of the case. Brij Bhusan Lan Pradhann Kumar Vs CIT (1978) 115 ITR 524(SC). 5. That for these and other reasons to be adduced at the time of hearing the appellant prays your honour to reduce the assessment to the returned figures." 3. We will first take up the appeal in ITA No. 160/CTK/2025 for AY 2017-18. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had deposited cash in the bank account during the period of demonetisation i.e. from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 in his bank account with the State Bank of India, Balimela an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant argues that he has been carrying business in grocery and seasonal goods since 2014 and filing income tax return up to Assessment Year 2016-17 by estimating the profit u/s 44AD of the Income tax Act. Unfortunately, the legal advisor of the assessee had not filed Income tax Return for the Asst Year 2017-18 due the reason best known to him. Subsequently the assessee has withdrawn the file from him and assigned the legal matter to another advocate for filing for the above assessment year. On receipt of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, he computed the statement of income and paid tax. 9.0 Ld. AO in the assessment order has discussed the issue as under- Please furnished the above details as called for, failure to which cash....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t satisfactory, hence Rs. 21,08,500/- is treated as unexplained money deposited into the bank account during the F/Y 2016-17 relevant to the A/Y 2017-18. Therefore Rs. 21,08,500/-is treated as the income from unexplained sources and added u/s 69A of the Act to the total income of the assessee. Income tax shall be calculated on the above addition of Rs. 21,08,500/- as per the provision of the section 115BBE of the Act, i.e. @ 60% of income added u/s 69A of the Act. 10.0 The appellant was provided with sufficient opportunity of being heard at the time of appeal proceedings. However, the appellant has failed to produce documents to establish the nature and sources of the cash deposited in the bank during the period of demonetization. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e principles of Evidence Act, in proceedings before them, they were prevented from doing so. It was further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that all that Section 110 of the Evidence Act, 1872 did was to embody a salutary principle of common law, jurisprudence viz, where a person was found in possessing of anything, the onus of proving that he was not its owner, was on that person. Thus, this principle could be attracted to a set of circumstances that satisfies its conditions and was applicable to taxing proceedings. Ld. AO has therefore necessarily to consider the surrounding circumstances, which he indeed has done in a very meticulous and careful manner. 12.0 Thus, I find that the appellant has not been able to substantiate the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mated u/s 44AD of the Act and a sum of Rs. 3,63,604/- was treated as business income besides Rs. 21,08,500/- which was added u/s 69A of the Act and the total income was assessed at Rs. 24,72,100/-. It was argued by the Ld. AR that only the deposits in the remaining period excluding the demonetisation period were treated as business receipts which is not justified. Further in AY 2018-19 the assessee had himself shown net profit rate of 5% on the turnover of Rs. 1.53 Crore. It was therefore, requested that the entire transactions ought to have been treated as business transactions and reasonable opportunity should have been provided to the assessee to explain his case. 8. We have considered the submissions made. The assessee's turnover for....