IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1725/AHD/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI RAJESHKUMAR BALKISHAN AGRAWAL, (PROP. RAJENDRA SALES AGENCY), 1137, OLD MADHUPURA MARKET, O/S. DELHI DARWAJA, SHAHIBAUG, AHMEDABAD PAN: ADCPA 2566 L VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), AHMEDABAD / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KALPESH SHAH, AR REVENUE BY : SMT. SONIA KUMAR, SR DR / DATE OF HEARING : 03/10/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05/10/2016 / O R D E R THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, AHMEDABAD DATED 18.03.2014 BEING UNJUSTIFIED ON FOL LOWING COUNTS:- I) NOT DECIDING THE ASSESSEES GROUNDS PROPERLY; II) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.17,08,670/- MADE BY T HE AO U/S 69 OF THE ACT; III) IGNORING THE WORKING OF PEAK CREDIT OF CASH DEPOSIT ED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE A SSESSEE IS A DISTRIBUTOR OF MATCHBOXES TO VARIOUS SMALLER PLACES AROUND AHME DABAD WHICH ARE PURCHASED FROM SIVAKASHI. THESE MATCHBOXES ARE SOL D IN DIFFERENT DISTRICTS AROUND AHMEDABAD. THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE TRANSAC TIONS THEREIN, BEING DEPOSITS OF SALES PROCEEDS OF MATCHBOXES, WERE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR. THE AO RECEIVED INFORMATION IN THIS BEHALF IN AIR. CONSEQU ENTLY, ENQUIRIES WERE MADE. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO BAN K STATEMENTS SHOWING THAT THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS IN VARIOUS SMALLER SU RROUNDING PLACES, WHICH SMC-ITA NO. 1725/AHD/2014 SHRI RAJESHKUMAR BALKISHAN AGRAWAL VS. ITO AY : 2009-10 2 CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE AMOUNTS CONSTITUTED SUCH UNACCOUNTED SALES PROCEEDS AND NOT THE LOANS OR ADVANCES RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE. THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED WERE BACKED UP BY CORRESPONDING WITHDRAWA LS BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE CREDIT ENTRIES REFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCO UNT CONSTITUTED THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS TURNOVER; THEREFORE, A SUITABLE RATE OF GP SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED. ALTERNATIVELY, PEAK CREDIT WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED. THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO CONSIDER THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS BASED ON PROPER MATERIAL. THEREFORE, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE UNJUSTIFIED, WITHOUT APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL ON RE CORD. 3. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. A PERUSAL OF BANK ACCOUNT INDICATES THAT THE DEPOSITS THEREIN WE RE MADE AT VARIOUS SMALL PLACES LIKE IQBALPUR AND OTHER SMALLER TOWNS/VILLAG ES AND IT EMERGES FROM THE RECORD THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF THE CREDIT ENTRI ES BEING BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE RULED OUT. IN VIEW THEREOF, I AM INCLINED TO SET ASIDE AND RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER CONSIDE RING ALL THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 5 TH OCTOBER, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- R.P. TOLANI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD; DATED 05/10/2016 *BIJU T. SMC-ITA NO. 1725/AHD/2014 SHRI RAJESHKUMAR BALKISHAN AGRAWAL VS. ITO AY : 2009-10 3 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD