Sridevi Ravi, CHENNAI V. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2718/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1396 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G CHANDRABABUSR
• Assessee Lawyers: B RAMAKRISHNAN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Presumptive income; Business income; Salary income; Peak credit; Additional evidence
• Section: 44AD; 142(1); 201; 48; 13; 69

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A B ENCH, CHENNAI . , . , % BEFORE SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.2716 TO 2718/CHNY/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2011-12) SMT. SRIDEVI RAVI, 1, SRINIVASA PILLAI STREET, WEST MAMBALAM, CHENNAI-600 033. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD-14(2) CHENNAI. PAN: AQBPS9220K ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. B.RAMAKRISHNAN, FCA /RESPONDENT BY : MR.G.CHANDRABABU,SR.AR /DATE OF HEARING : 02.12.2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.12.2020 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE, BUT IDENTICAL ORDER OF THE LEARN ED CIT(APPEALS)- 14, CHENNAI ALL DATED 25.07.2018 AND PERTAIN TO AS SESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2011-12. SINCE, THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND ISSUES ARE COMMON, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THEY WERE CLUB BED, HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATE D ORDER. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS MORE OR LESS RAISED COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THEREFORE, F OR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN ITA NO.2017/CHNY/2018 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 2 ITA NOS. 2716 TO 2718/CHNY/2018 1. FOR THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FACTS, AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. FOR THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAVING ACCEPTED THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENG AGED IN CIVIL WORKS CONTRACT AND THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE SAID BUSINESS IS TAXABLE @ 8% U/S 44AD OF THE INCOM E- TAX ACT, 1961, ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO INCLUDE PEAK CREDIT ON THE TOTAL DEPOSITS IN THE AP PELLANTS BANK ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO ` 20,56,013/-IN COMPUTING THE ASSESSED INCOME. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM SALARY, INCOME FROM HOUSE PRO PERTY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES FILED HER RETURN OF INCOM E FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON 11.10.2010 DECLARING TO TAL INCOME OF ` 14,03,558/-. THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN, SUBSEQUENTLY REOPENED U/S.147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER RE FERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR THE REASONS RECORDED, AS PER WHICH INCOM E CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD BEEN ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF NO N-DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH BA NK OF INDIA, WEST MAMBALAM BRANCH, AND ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S.1 48 DATED 30.03.2015 WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE VIDE HER LETTER DATED 26.08.2015 STA TED THAT RETURN ORIGINALLY FILED ON 11.10.2010 MAY BE TREATED AS R ETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 OF THE ACT. SIMU LTANEOUSLY, THE ASSESSEE ALSO SOUGHT FOR REASONS RECORDED FOR REO PENING OF 3 ITA NOS. 2716 TO 2718/CHNY/2018 ASSESSMENT AND THE SAME WAS FURNISHED. THEREAFTER, THE CASE HAS BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICES U/S.143(2) AND 142(1) ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE WERE ISSUED VIDE OFFICE LETTER D ATED 28.01.2015. IN RESPONSE, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED FRO M TIME TO TIME AND FILED VARIOUS DETAILS CALLED FOR. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED SAVING S BANK ACCOUNT VIDE NO.802910110001466 WITH THE BANK OF INDIA, WES T MAMBALAM BRANCH AND DEPOSITED HUGE CASH ON VARIOUS DATES AMO UNTING TO ` 1,27,36,473/- AND, THEREFORE CALLED UPON THE ASSE SSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INCOME FOR CASH DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSE E VIDE LETTER DATED 06.10.2015 HAS FILED VARIOUS DETAILS INCLUDI NG CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND SUBMITTED THAT CASH DEPOSITS FOUND I N HER BANK ACCOUNT WAS EXPLAINED AND SOURCE OF SUCH CASH DEPO SITS WERE OUT OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS FROM CIVIL CONTRACT WORK, INTE RIOR DECORATIONS AND HAS ALSO AN AMOUNT OF ` 25.00 LAKHS, BEING AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM PARTIES ON CANCELLATION OF SALE AGREEMENT. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AFTER TAKING NOTE OF VARIOUS DETAILS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO CASH DEPOSIT OF ` 25.00 LAKHS OUT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM CERTAIN P ARTIES FOR 4 ITA NOS. 2716 TO 2718/CHNY/2018 CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF REMAINING CASH DEPOSITS OF ` 81,20,460/-, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPIN ION THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN EXP LAINED CASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN BANK ACCOUNT AS BUSINESS RECEIPTS , BUT THE SAID CASH DEPOSIT RECEIPTS WERE NOT OFFERED TO TAX, ACC ORDINGLY WORKED OUT PEAK CREDIT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOU NT OF ` 21,16,013/- ON 03.12.2010 AND THE SAME HAS BEEN BR OUGHT TO TAX AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS U/S.69 OF THE ACT. FURTH ER OUT OF TOTAL CASH DEPOSIT OF ` 81,20,460/- AFTER ALLOWING PEAK CREDIT OF ` 21,16,013/-, BALANCE AMOUNT HAS BEEN TREATED AS REC EIPTS FROM BUSINESS AND HAS ESTIMATED 8% NET PROFIT UNDER SECT ION 44AD OF THE ACT AND MADE ADDITION OF ` 6,49,637/-. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A SSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). BEF ORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILED WRITTEN SUB MISSIONS ALONG WITH CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND ARGUED THAT C ASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN HER SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH T HE BANK OF INDIA, WEST MAMBALAM BRANCH HAS BEEN EXPLAINED WITH KNOWN SOURCE OF INCOME . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS MADE AD DITION TOWARDS 5 ITA NOS. 2716 TO 2718/CHNY/2018 PEAK CREDIT ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF INCOME FOR CASH DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE FURTHER ADDITION TOWARDS 8% PROFIT ON BALANCE CASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN HER BANK ACCOUNT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44 AD OF THE ACT, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED SOURCE FOR CASH DEPOSITS. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER H IMSELF HAD ADMITTED THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CASH FROM HER CIVIL CONTRACT BUSINESS AND HAS ESTIMATED PROFIT FROM SA ID BUSINESS BY APPLYING PRESUMPTIVE TAXATION RATE APPLICABLE U/S.4 4AD OF THE ACT, HE OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS FO UND IN HER BANK ACCOUNT AS RECEIPTS FROM BUSINESS AND HAS ESTIMAT ED THE PROFIT OF 8%. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FORWARDED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES TO THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS . IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FILED A REMAND REPORT DATED 13.10.2017 AND COMMENTED UPON THE ADMISSIBILI TY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RU LE 46A AND ALSO COMMENTED UPON VERACITY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FI LED IN LIGHT OF CASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF VARIOUS EVIDENCES FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ON THE GROUND THAT WHEN 6 ITA NOS. 2716 TO 2718/CHNY/2018 ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILED CERTAIN EVIDENCES BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN THE SAME CAN BE FILED BEFORE THE APP ELLATE AUTHORITY AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAVING CONCURRENT JURIS DICTION WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN VERY WELL ADMIT THE ADDITIONA L EVIDENCES, IF THOSE EVIDENCES ARE RELEVANT TO DECIDE THE ISSUES O N MERIT AND ACCORDINGLY, ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FIL ED BY THE ASSESSE. AS REGARDS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS CASH DEPOSITS FOUND WITH THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSE , THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ARRI VED AT PEAK CREDIT OUT OF THE CASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN HER BANK A CCOUNT AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN CASH DEPOSITS WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCES. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FAI LED TO EXPLAIN CASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN HER BANK ACCOUNT THROUGH KNO WN SOURCE OF INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHOSEN TO ESTIMAT E THE INCOME BY APPLYING ONE OF THE POSSIBLE METHOD OF ARRIVING AT PEAK CREDIT AND HENCE, THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE FINDINGS RECORDED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ARRIVING AT PEAK CREDIT OF CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN HER BANK ACCOUNT AND MADE ADDITION U/S.69 OF THE ACT. AS R EGARDS ESTIMATION OF FURTHER INCOME @8% PROFIT U/S.44AD OF THE ACT ,O N BALANCE CASH DEPOSITS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING N ECESSARY FACTS INCLUDING THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSE HAS CO ME TO A RIGHT 7 ITA NOS. 2716 TO 2718/CHNY/2018 CONCLUSION THAT BALANCE CASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN HER BANK ACCOUNT IS OUT OF CONTRACT BUSINESS, WHICH IS LIABLE TO BE TAX ED UNDER PRESUMPTIVE RATE OF TAX AS PRESCRIBED U/S.44AD AND ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE ESTIMATION 8% PROFIT ON BALANCE CASH DEP OSIT U/S.44AD OF THE ACT. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT(A) ORDER, THE A SSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS PEAK CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS FOU ND IN HER BANK ACCOUNT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ONCE B ANK CREDIT IS ACCEPTED AS TURNOVER FROM HER BUSINESS AND PROFIT HAS BEEN ESTIMATED ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS U/S.44AD OF THE ACT, THEN THERE IS NO REASON TO ACCEPT PART CASH DEPOSITS AS BUSINESS RECEIPTS AND PART AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. IN THIS REGARD, H E RELIED UPON CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF BANGALORE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MR. GIRISH V. YALAKKISHETTAR VS. ITO, HUBLI IN ITA NO.354 & 355/BANG/2019. 8. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LEARNED CIT(A) HAVE B ROUGHT OUT FACTS 8 ITA NOS. 2716 TO 2718/CHNY/2018 CLEARLY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN SOU RCE OF INCOME FOR CASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN HER BANK ACCOUNT AND ACCORDI NGLY HAS ARRIVED AT UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS BY ESTIMATING PE AK CREDIT METHOD FOR PART OF THE CASH DEPOSITS AND THE REMAI NING CASH DEPOSITS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS CONTRACT RECEIPTS AN D ESTIMATED 8% PROFIT BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD O F THE ACT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE FINDINGS RECORD ED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO ESTIMATE INCOME OUT OF UNEXP LAINED CASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT, HENC E THEIR ORDERS SHOULD BE UPHELD. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIE S BELOW. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS EMERGE CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED HER SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH BANK OF INDIA, WEST MAMBALAM BRANCH. FURTHER, WHEN THE CASE HAS B EEN TAKEN UP FOR REASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME OUT WITH EXPLANATION THAT CASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN HER BANK ACCOUNT IS O UT OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED TO INCOME-TAX PURP OSE, HOWEVER, ADMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT NET PROF IT MAY BE ESTIMATED BY APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD O F THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION FUR NISHED BY THE 9 ITA NOS. 2716 TO 2718/CHNY/2018 ASSESSEE IN PART AND ACCORDINGLY DIVIDED CASH DEPOS ITS FOUND IN HER BANK ACCOUNT INTO TWO PARTS, I.E ONE FROM UNEXPLAIN ED INVESTMENTS AND THE OTHER FROM OUT OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS. INSOF AR AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ARRIVED AT P EAK CREDIT ON A PARTICULAR DATE AND MADE ADDITION U/S.69 OF THE AC T AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS BUSINESS RECEIPTS AND HAS ESTIMATED 8% NET PROFIT BY APPLYING PRESUMPTIVE PROFIT U/S.44AD OF THE ACT . IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ONCE BANK CREDIT IS ACCEPTED AS TURNOVER FROM HER BUSINESS ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS U /S.44AD OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO REASON TO TREAT THE REMAINING AMOU NT OF CASH DEPOSITS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS WHICH IS TO B E TAXED U/S.68 OR 69 OF THE ACT. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS T AKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT ASSESSING OFF ICER HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIPTS FROM HER BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONTRACT AND THE SAME HAS TO BE TAXED AT 8% ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS U/S.44AD OF THE ACT. ONCE PART OF BANK CRE DIT IS ACCEPTED AS TURNOVER ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS AND HAS TAXED ACCO RDINGLY BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT , THEN THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE A DIFFERE NT VIEW FOR REMAINING PART OF CASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT 10 ITA NOS. 2716 TO 2718/CHNY/2018 AND TREAT THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS TO B E TAXED U/S.69 OF THE ACT, BECAUSE IT IS AN ADMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS PROVED WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCES THAT SHE HAS RECEIVED C ASH FROM BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF CIVIL CONTRACT AND INTERIOR D ECORATION WORK. IT IS ALSO ADMITTED FACT THAT SAID ACTIVITY HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED IN INCOME-TAX RETURN FILED FOR RELEVANT YEAR AND T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE SAID ACTIVITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING HER BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND SOURC E OF INCOME FOR CASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN HER BANK ACCOUNT, HE OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN HER SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT. 10. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEP TED PART OF CASH DEPOSITS AS OUT OF HER BUSINESS RECEIPTS AND PAR T OF CASH DEPOSITS AS HER UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS, WITHOUT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY COGENT REASONS TO JUSTIFY DIFFERENT VIEW TAKEN ON C ASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN HER BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE SAME FINANCIAL YEAR. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO SIMPLY UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON WHY EXPLANATION FURNI SHED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING SOURCE OF INCOME FOR CASH DEPOS ITS FOUND IN 11 ITA NOS. 2716 TO 2718/CHNY/2018 HER BANK ACCOUNT WAS ACCEPTED IN PART, CANNOT BE A CCEPTED FOR REMAINING CASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN THE SAME BANK ACC OUNT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ASSES SING OFFICER AS WELL AS LEARNED CIT(A) WERE ERRED IN ASSESSING PART OF CASH DEPOSITS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS TO BE TAXED U/S.69 OF THE ACT AND PART OF CASH DEPOSITS AS RECEIPTS FROM BUSINESS LIAB LE TO BE TAXED U/S.44AD OF THE ACT. HENCE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO TREAT THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN HER BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH BANK OF INDIA, WEST MAMBALAM BRANCH AS RECEIPTS FRO M HER CIVIL CONTRACT BUSINESS AND ESTIMATE 8% NET PROFIT ON TO TAL RECEIPTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 0-11 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.2716/CHNY/2018(AY 2009-10): 11. THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUES CONSIDERED IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS IN ITA NO.2717/CHNY/2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE SLIGHT DIFFERENCE IN FACTS OF THIS CASE IS ADDITIONS MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING CASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITIONS TOWARDS TOTAL AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS 12 ITA NOS. 2716 TO 2718/CHNY/2018 FOUND IN HER BANK ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTME NTS U/S.69 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING HIS FIN DINGS RECORDED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, HAS DIRECTED THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO MAKE ADDITIONS TOWARDS CASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN HER BANK ACCOUNT BY APPLYING PEAK CREDIT THEORY AND FOR REMAINING BALANCE AMOUNT FOUND IN HER BANK ACCOUNT , DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE SAME AS RECEIPTS FROM HER CONTRACT BUSINESS AND E STIMATE 8% NET PROFIT BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED IDENTICAL ISSUE FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2010-11 AND FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN, WE DIRE CT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN HER SB ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH BANK OF INDIA, WEST MAMBALAM BRAN CH, AS HER RECEIPTS FROM CONTRACT BUSINESS AND ESTIMATE 8% NET PROFIT BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE AC T. THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR ARE PARI MATERIA WITH THE FACTS WHICH WE HAVE CONSIDERED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11.THEREFO RE, FOR SIMILAR REASONS RECORDED IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS IN ITA NO.2717/CHNY/2018, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN HER BANK ACCOUNT MAIN TAINED WITH BANK OF INDIA, WEST MAMBALAM BRANCH, AS RECEIPTS FROM HE R CIVIL CONTRACT 13 ITA NOS. 2716 TO 2718/CHNY/2018 BUSINESS AND ESTIMATE 8% OF NET PROFIT ON PRESUMPTI VE BASIS BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE AC T. ITA NO.2718/CHNY/2018(AY 2011-12): 13. THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL ARE ALSO IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS WHICH WE HAVE CONSIDERED IN APPEAL IN ITA NO.2717/CHNY/2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT OF DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT OF CASH DE POSITS FOUND IN HER BANK ACCOUNT, INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS TREATED TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS FOUND AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS TO BE TAXED U/S.68 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTIMATE INCOME TOWARDS CASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN H ER BANK ACCOUNT BY APPLYING THEORY OF PEAK CREDIT AND FOR THE B ALANCE CASH DEPOSITS AS RECEIPTS FROM CONTRACT BUSINESS LIABL E TO BE TAXED @ 8% ON NET PROFIT ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS UNDER THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT. 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED IDENTICAL ISSUE UNDER IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND FOR THE DETA ILED REASONS STATED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN HER SB ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH BANK OF INDIA, WEST MAMBALAM BRANCH, AS HER RECEIPTS FROM 14 ITA NOS. 2716 TO 2718/CHNY/2018 CONTRACT BUSINESS AND ESTIMATE 8% NET PROFIT BY A PPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT. THE FACT S FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE PARI MATERIA WITH THAT OF FACTS CONSIDERED BY US FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. WE, THEREF ORE, FOR SIMILAR REASONS RECORDED IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS IN ITA NO.2717/CHNY/2018, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS FOUND IN HER BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH BANK OF INDIA, WEST MAMBALAM BRANCH, AS RECEIPTS FROM HER C IVIL CONTRACT BUSINESS AND ESTIMATE 8% OF NET PROFIT ON PRESUMPTI VE BASIS BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE AC T. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE FOR ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 5 TH DECEMBER, 2020 SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (V.DURGA RAO) (G.MANJUNATHA ) ' % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 15 TH DECEMBER, 2020 DS *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF .