SH. RAGHBIR SINGH. HADIABAD, PHAGWARA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, PHAGWARA

ITA 115/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4951 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 115/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Raghbir Singh, Hadiabad Near St. Soldier College, Phagwara [PAN: BVJPS 0846M] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Phagwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Y. K. Sud, CA Respondent by: Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 19.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 21.09.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 05.11.2018 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar, in respect of the Assessment Year 2010-11. ITA No. 115/Asr/2019 Raghbir Singh Hadiabad v. ITO 2 2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee Sh. Y.K. Sud, CA submitted that the addition of Rs.1,70,550/- i.e., 6% of Rs.28,42,490/- made by the AO on the wrong presumption of cash sales treating the deposits made in the bank account out of the cash flow of the appellant assessee. However, the ld. counsel has offered 50% of Rs.1,70,550/- at Rs.85,275/- to settle the dispute in view of the cash flow statement of the bank deposits was self explanatory and no addition could have been made on presumption basis. 3. The ld. DR though stand by the impugned order but has no objection to the offer of Rs.85,275/- made by the counsel. Accordingly, considering the factual matrix of the case, we hold it is fair and reasonable to accept Rs.85,275/- is admitted addition on account of poultry business. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.09.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr/PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(Appeals) ITA No. 115/Asr/2019 Raghbir Singh Hadiabad v. ITO 3 (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order