TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 731
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw as well as on facts in confirming Rs. 68,960/- by estimating business income at 8% of the same. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts in making addition by estimating business income of Rs. 15,28,114/- i.e. 8% of cash deposits of Rs. 1,91,01,420/-. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the same after reducing the amount by Rs. 3,48,915/- which was already offered by the assessee in his return." 3. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual. A perusal of the assessment order passed by the assessing officer would reveal that first issue under consideration in the assessee's case was cash deposited by him during demonetization period in his bank account maintained with the Cooperative Bank of Rajkot Ltd., Jetpur, bearing Account No. 0006110100003614. The said cash deposits were worked out by the assessing officer from the bank account statement of the assessee at Rs. 8,62,000 during the demonetization period. Since the assessee has not submitted any details during the assessment proceedings, even after giving sufficient time and opportunity to explain source of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee has not responded to notices u/s.142(1) and show cause notices issued during E-assessment proceedings. Hence to finalize ex-part best judgement assessment after considering the above facts and material available on records 8% of total credit entries of Rs. 1,91,01,420/- in bank account No. 0006110100003614 which comes to Rs. 15,28,114/- (19101420 X 8%) are treated as net business income of the assessee which was not offered for taxation for the year under consideration and the same is hereby added to the total income of assessee for the year under consideration. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee observing as follows: "5.6.2 Therefore, it is apparent that the assessing officer had admitted and concluded that the assessee was conducting business activity throughout the year under consideration. If this fact is admitted by the assessing officer then I find no reason why deposits during demonetization period by the assessee should be construed as unexplained cash credit in its bank accounts by the assessing officer. Demonetization pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o get the balances from the distributors (i.e. Agency House, Reliance Retail Limited and Telenor India Communications Private Limited). The assessee used to sell mobile recharge balances to numerous small retailers and customers on a daily basis. These retailers and customers were almost always making the payments to the assessee in cash. The assessee used to deposit such cash in his bank accounts from which the amounts were remitted to distributors. 5.7.2 To substantiate his claim, the assessee has filed the following documents: i. Agreement with Reliance Retail Ltd. ii. Copy of his ITR and Computation of Total Income for the concerned A.Y. iii. Copy of his Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account for the concerned F.Y. iv. Copy of his cash book for the concerned F.Y. v. Copy of his bank statement. vi. Ledger account of distributors in his books of accounts. 5.7.3 Facts of the case and contentions of the assessee have been taken into account. It is seen that to demonstrate that he was into the business of working as sub-dealer for various telecom operators doing mobile balance recharge in lieu of commission, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to demonstrate as to how his direct income in the form of commission of Rs. 9,72,024/- was worked out. In view of these factual matrices, it is felt that assessing officer was judicious and fair enough to hold that the assessee was involved in continuous business activities, and accordingly making addition to the Total income of the assessee only to the extent of Rs. 15,28,114/-, being 8% of cash deposits of Rs. 1,91,01,420/-. As such, it is felt that no interference is required in the said addition made by the assessing officer. It is, however, felt that the Total Income offered by the assessee in the original ITR filed by him of Rs. 3,48,915/-, ought to have been reduced by the assessing officer from the assessed Total Income as including the same has led to double taxation in the hands of the assessee. The assessing officer is directed accordingly. Therefore, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed." 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. The Learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had sustained the addition to the tune of (Rs. 15,28,144 - Rs. 3,48,915) Rs. 11,79,199/- i....