TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1723
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing Officer under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 20.11.2018. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi erred in law and in facts, in not appreciating the facts of the case and the evidence & thereby confirming the addition of Rs. 1,61,69,485/- u/s 69A and hence your appellant prays that the addition being unfair, illegal and in total disregard of the facts, be deleted." 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that there is delay of 5 days in filin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ht adjournment for 10 days, which was not allowed. The Assessing Officer passed assessment order on 20.11.2018. The Assessing Officer made addition of entire cash deposit and other credit in the bank account of assessee. The entire cash deposit and other credit can never be treated as income of assessee under Income-tax proceedings. The assessee was engaged in trading of mobile phones and accessories thereof. The assessee has declared total turnover as per his return of income at Rs. 83.43 lakhs and offered income under section 44AD of the Act. The cash deposit and other credit were out of business receipt and not from undisclosed source. The assessee is maintaining only one bank account. There is regular deposit and withdrawal of amount in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his accountant without his knowledge. On the contention of assessee that maximum peak balance in his account during the year as on 19.09.2015 was received Rs. 8,57,004/- only, the Assessing Officer not accepted such contentions by holding that credit entries has not been explained fully. However, no comments were given of peak balance during the year. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that on the remand report, assessee has filed his objection/rejoinder and he stated that entire business receipt can never be income of assessee. The Appellate Authority are empowered to admit such additional evidence. Additional evidence was not accepted by ld. CIT(A) and he upheld the addition to the extent of Rs. 1.16 crores by taking view that assessee ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to discharge his onus. There was clear discrepancy, in the total turnover declared by assessee while filing return of income as well as while filing submission before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) submits that ld. CIT(A) passed order by confirming the addition made by Assessing Officer. 5. We have considered the rival submission of both parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. First we are considering the plea of assessee for condonation of delay in filing appeal. Before us, the ld AR of the assessee that delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, rather the delay is very small and that the assessee is interested in perusing the matter. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....termine income on the basis of highest peak. The assessee also relied on the decision of Surat bench in Semadri Bhagwan Pradhan Vs ITO in ITA No. 3133/Ahd/2015 and on various other cases wherein it was held that entire cash deposits can never be income of the assessee. 7. We find that on filing submission and application under Rule 46A, the submission of assessee was forwarded to Assessing Officer for obtaining his remand report. The Assessing Officer objected against the admission of additional evidence though the Assessing Officer also made his comment on merit of the case point out the discrepancy in total turnover declared by assessee while filing return of income and filed during First Appellate stage. The assessee filed his rejoind....