TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 677
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "(1) That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,23,800/- made u/s 69 of the Act in respect of cash deposit in bank account. (2) That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC ought to have considered and accepted the fact that appellant is taxable on presumptive basis u/s 44AD of the Act and the cash deposits are in respect of sales of appellant's 'Kirana Business', and taxing the same on gross basis amounts to double taxation. (3) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in a kirana retail business a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer and called for a remand report, and the Assessing Officer strongly objected to the admission of additional evidence, stating that sufficient opportunities had been given and that notices were served at all available addresses. The Assessing Officer further stated that even after being asked during the remand proceedings to furnish purchase bills, VAT returns, confirmations from suppliers, electricity bills, rent agreement and municipal permission, the assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence to establish that he was actually carrying on kirana business during the relevant year. The assessee filed a detailed rebuttal in response to the remand report and submitted that under section 44AD of the Act he was not requ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and therefore had not discharged the burden of proving the nature and source of the cash deposits. The CIT(A) also held that merely claiming applicability of section 44AD did not relieve the assessee of the responsibility to establish that he was an eligible assessee and was engaged in eligible business during the relevant period. Accordingly, the CIT(A) held that since the assessee was the owner of the money and had failed to satisfactorily explain the source, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was justified. Accordingly, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition of Rs. 20,23,800/-. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 7. Befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also a matter of record that the assessee had explained before the CIT(A) that the said deposits were out of daily cash sales of the kirana business and had furnished a sales register, cash book, bank statements and trading results which showed total sales of approximately Rs. 22 lakhs during the relevant period. A perusal of the bank statement placed in the paper book demonstrates that the pattern of deposits broadly corresponds with the daily sales recorded, and further, there are regular withdrawals from the same bank account by the assessee, which the assessee has claimed were utilized for purchase of goods. Before us, the Department has not brought on record any cogent material to controvert the explanation furnished by the assessee or....