AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1687
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 13,09,188/- u/s 69 A and in confirming another addition of Rs. 8,78,300/- u/s 69A of the Act as made by the AO in the assessment order u/s 143[3] r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 09.12.2019. These two additions as confirmed by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted being the same bad in law and devoid of any merit. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 11,09,188/- out of total addition of Rs. 21,87,488/- as made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act in the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that benefit of the income of Rs. 1,97,885/-(i.e. almost 2,00,000/-) on account of sale of vegetables and milk as reflected u/s 44AD of the Act itself was shown by the appellant as profit in the return of income and therefore there is no question of deletion of any such amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- which itself was offered as income in the return of income and which was never part of any addition. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) was required to delete this addition of Rs. 11,09,188/- also as the submission of the appellant that he was a small vendor of vegetables and milk and was doing business in cash was found to be plausible/ acceptable by the Ld. CIT(A) in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and therefore the same may kindly be cancelled. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the aforesaid ground or grounds if necessary" 3. The brief facts of the case are that for the impugned assessment year, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 14,74,188/- in his bank account. The assessee had not filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year and accordingly notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response to notice under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,97,885/- including net agricultural income of Rs. 1,65,000/-. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has claimed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s amount was added as income of the assessee under Section 69A of the Act. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) give partial relief to the assessee. 4. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A). Before us, the Counsel for the assessee filed written submission and also took various oral arguments before us. In sum and substance, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a small vendor engaged in sale of milk and vegetables. The assessee had sold milk and vegetables to various vendors from whom certain amounts in cash was received which were directly deposited in his bank account at various locations across the country. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no bar on the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e at such short intervals. Accordingly, in our considered view, looking into the assessee's facts, the assessee has not been able to give any satisfactory explanation regarding the source of cash deposits and credit entries in his bank account. Further, in the alternative, the Counsel for the assessee took another argument that even if the assessee is unable to substantiate the source of deposits / credits appearing in his bank account, however, it is an established law that the entire deposits / credits appearing in the bank account of the assessee cannot be added as undisclosed income of the assessee, without giving credit for withdrawals made by the assessee from the same bank account. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that it is a ....