Pandurang Shivaji Naikwadi, Solapur V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 1, Pandharpur

ITA 2508/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4952 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 13-08-2019
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 27-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VISHWAS MUNDHE
• Keywords: Peak credit

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL , VICE PRESIDENT . / ITA NO. 2508 /PUN/20 17 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013 - 14 PANDURANG SHIVAJI NAIKWADI, HAJARE GALLI, MANGALWEDHA, SOLAPUR - 413 305. PAN : AMLPN3004A ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, PANDHARPUR. / RESPONDENT A SSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI VISHWAS MUNDHE / DATE OF HEARING : 13 .0 8 .2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 .08 .2019 / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 7 , PUNE ON 04.08.2017 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,83,630/ - . ON VERIFICATION OF BANK PASSBOOK, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN CASH DEPOSITS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD NO EXPLANATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF PEAK BALANCE IN BANK ACCOUNT AT RS.5,96,832/ - . 2 ITA NO. 2508 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2013 - 14 3. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.1.16 C RORE IN BANK AS AGAINST THE DECLARED TURNOVER OF RS.64,46,593/ - . THE A SSESSEE HAD DECLARED NET PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 8.02% ON TURNOVER . APPLYING THE SAME PROFIT RATE ON THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF TURNOVER , T HE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ADDED RS.4,53,854/ - ALTHOUGH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS DELETED. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION TO THIS EXTENT . THERE IS NO APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE. 4 . I HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORDS. THERE IS NO APPEARANCE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTICE. IT IS SEEN THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS GIVEN COGENT REASONS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION TO THIS EXTENT. THE A SSESSEE HAS NEITHER APPEARED NO R ADVANCED ANY SUBMISSIONS AS TO HOW THE FIND INGS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ARE INCORRECT. IN VIEW OF TH E FOREGOING , I UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 5 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRO NOUNCED ON 13 TH D AY OF AUGUST , 201 9 . SD/ - R . S . SYAL / VICE - PRESIDENT / PUNE; / DATED : 13 TH AUGUST , 201 9 . SB 3 ITA NO. 2508 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2013 - 14 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS) - 7, PUNE. 4. THE CIT - 6, PUNE. 5. , , - , / DR, ITAT, SMC BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE . 4 ITA NO. 2508 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2013 - 14 * DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 13.08 .201 9 SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 13.08 .2019 SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR. PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR. PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER