The ITO, Ward-7(3), Ahmedabad V. Shri Ramesh Khushaldas Wadwani, Ahmedabad

ITA 2911/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6178 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA HEAR ING CONCLUDE
• Keywords: Business income; Peak credit; Question of law; Corroborative evidences; Revised return
• Section: 133(6); 69

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2911 / AHD/201 3 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 9 - 10 PA GE 1 OF 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND S S GODARA JM] ITA NO. 2911 /AHD/201 3 ASSESSMENT Y EAR : 20 0 9 - 10 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(3), AHMEDABAD. ... .. ......... APPELLANT VS. RAMESH KHUSHALDAS WADWANI ... .......... .RESPONDENT 7 - B, UDHAVNAGAR COLONY, SORABJI COMPOUND, OLD WADAJ, AHMEDABAD 380 013. [PAN: AA JPW 7242 B ] APPEARANCES BY PRASOON KABRA FOR THE A PPELLANT S.N. DIVETIA FOR THE R E SPONDENT HEAR ING CONCLUDED ON: 20.04. 2017 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 27 . 0 4 .2017 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR , AM: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF LEARNED CIT(A) S ORDER DATED 11.09.2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 9 - 10, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - I) THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,75,000/ - OUT OF RS.56,03,130/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INCOME BEING CASH DEPOSI TED IN THE BANK U/S.69B OF THE ACT. II) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER. III) IT IS , THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (A) MAY BE SET - ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. ITA NO. 2911 / AHD/201 3 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 9 - 10 PA GE 2 OF 7 2. TO ADJUDICATE ON THIS APPEAL, ONLY A FEW MATERIAL F ACTS NEED TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF. AS HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGE D IN THE BUSINESS OF LABOUR WORK AND MANUFACTURING OF JEANS IN THE NAME AND STYLE AS JEEL CREATIONS . ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION, THE ASSESSING O FFICER CAME TO KNOW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SEVERAL CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK OF BARODA, AGGREGATING TO RS.56,03,130/ - , IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. WHEN HE PROBED THE MATTER FURTHER, IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE T HAT THESE DEPOSITS WERE OUT OF HIS UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER FROM BUSINESS, AND OFFERED TO PAY TAX ON THE PROFIT, COMPUTED @3% ON SU CH TURNOVER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE, AND PROCEEDED TO BRING TO TAX ENTIRE UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSITS ON THE BASIS OF FOLLOWING REASONING: - 4.3 THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED CAREFULLY WHICH IS DEALT WITH POINTWISE AS UNDER: - (I) THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT FROM OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS FROM TRADING ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY HIM IN CLOTH ON SEMI - WHOLESALE AND RETAIL BASIS. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS SUCH AS NAME & STYLE OF ALLEGED BUSINESS CARRIED BY HIM, NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM HE HAS MADE PURCHASES, COPIES OF PURCHASE AND SALES BILLS AND OTHER SUPPORTING MATERIALS ON WHICH THE DEPARTMENT CAN RELY UPON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND PURCHASES A ND SALES OF WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED SOME COPY OF COMPUTERIZED SALES BILLS ONLY ON WHICH THERE IS NO ADDRESS OF THE PART IES TO WHOM THE SALES WERE MADE AND DUE TO THIS THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT VERIFY FROM THE SAID PARTIES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REALLY SOLD MATERIALS TO THEM. HE HAS NOT FURNISHED NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM HE HAS MADE PURCHASES AND COPY OF P URCHASE BILLS IN SUPPORT OF ALLEGED TRADING BUSINESS THOUGH HE WAS REQUIRED. (II) FURTHER, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE HAS NOT KEPT WITH HIM THE PURCHASE BILL IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND CONVINCING FOR THE REASON THAT WHEN HE KEEP SALES BILL, HE I S SUPPOSED TO KEEP THE PURCHASE BILL AS WELL. THE PURCHASE BILLS ARE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT THAN SALES BILLS FOR A BUSINESS MAN TO ARRIVE AT EXACT POSITION OF HIS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. 4.4 THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ALL THE REQUIRED INFORMATION AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF HIS ALLEGED BUSINESS ACTIVITIES BUT FURNISHED ITA NO. 2911 / AHD/201 3 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 9 - 10 PA GE 3 OF 7 SOME SALES BILLS TO PROVE HIS CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT TRADING ACTIVITIES TO SHOW THAT THE CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK IS OUT OF THE VERY SALE PROCEEDS WHICH I S NOTHING BUT AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND COLORFUL DEVICE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF HIS ALLEGED BUSINESS ACTIVITIES THOUGH HE WAS REQUIRED TO DO SO. FURTHER, THE ASS ESSEE HAS DISCLOSED GROSS PROFIT OF RS.1,68,090/ - @ 2.99% ON TOTAL SALES OF RS.56,03,130/ - FOR HIS ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WHEREAS HE HAS DISCLOSED NET PROFIT OF RS.1,78,364 / - @ 16.65% ON SALES OF RS. 10,70,942 / - IN HIS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES C ARRIED OUT BY HIM UNDER THE NAME & STYLE ' JEEL CREATION ' OF WHICH TRANSACTIONS ARE RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SURPRISING THAT IN THE SAME LINE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, HOW CAN THERE BE VAST DIFFERENCE IN PROFIT, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE , WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PREPARED THE TRADING ACCOUNT FOR HIS ALLEGED BUSINESS ACTIVITIES IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK. 5. IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE ELABORATE DISCUSSION, THE UNDERSIGNED IS LEFT WITH ONLY ONE ALT ERNATIVE TO REJECT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS CARRIED OUT BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, THE ACCOUNTS OF WHICH IS NOT RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT FROM OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS FROM TRADING CAR RIED OUT BY HIM IN CLOTH ON SEMI - WHOLESALE AND RETAIL BASIS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT IS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. THEREFORE, AN AMOUNT OF RS.56,03,130 / - BEING CASH DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF BA RODA, NARANPURA BRANCH, AHMEDABAD IS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IN THIS CASE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO CONSIDER THE PEAK WORKING OF THE CASH BALANCE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE WITHDRAWALS IN CASH FROM BANK ACCOUNT AND MADE SUBSEQUENT DEPOSITS AND AGAIN MADE WITHDRAWAL AND REDEPOSITED CASH IN THE BANK. ACCORDINGLY, AN ADDITION OF RS. 56,03,130 / - BEING CASH DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF BARODA, NARANPURA BRANCH, AHMEDABAD IS MADE CONSIDERING T HE SAME AS OUT OF ASSESSEE'S UNEXPLAINED INCOME. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U / S . 274 R . W . S . 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE INITIATED FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. 3. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT ( A ) , WHO PARTL Y UPHELD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. WHILE DOING SO, IN A WELL REASONED AND DETAILED ORDER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS : - 5. I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ENUMERATED BY A.O. SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT. I HAVE PERUSED THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY A. O. AS WELL AS APPELLANT. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF FACTS, SUBMISSION A ND CONTENTION OF BOTH A.O. AS WELL AS OF APPELLANT, GROUND WISE ADJUDICATION IS AS FOLLOWS: THE APPELLANT'S GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 56,03,1307 - BY A. O. AND REJECTION OF APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT HE INDULGED IN UNACCOUNTED TRADING OF CLOTH ON WHOLE SALE/SEMI - WHOLE SALE BASIS. THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION AND GETTING THE DETAILS FROM BANK OF BARODA, NARANPURA BRANCH, AHMEDABAD U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 56,03,130 BEING CASH ITA NO. 2911 / AHD/201 3 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 9 - 10 PA GE 4 OF 7 OF VARIED AMOUNT ON VARIOUS DATES DEPOSITED BY APPELLANT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT FOR WHICH APPELLANT HAS NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION AS FAR AS SOURCE OF SUCH CASH IS CONCERNED. IT IS UNDISPUTED AND ADMITTED BY APPELLANT THAT THE INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK A/C. NO. 07950100016508 IS TRUE. HOWEVER THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT THAT SAME IS OUT OF SALES OF CLOTH TRADING BEING DONE BY APPELLANT WHICH WAS REJECTED BY A.O. ON THE GROUND THAT APPELLANT FAILED TO SUBMIT EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF PURCHASES MADE BY HIM. FURTHER A.O. REJECTED THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM TO CONSIDER THE PEAK CREDIT IN THE SAID BANK SINCE IT HAS TRANSACTION THROUGH CHEQUES AND THERE ARE NO WITHDRAWALS IN CASH. I AM NOT INC LINED WITH THE CONTENTION OF A.O. THAT APPELLANT'S EXPLANATION FOR SOURCE OF SUCH CASH DEPOSIT OUT OF SALE FROM TRADING HAS NO EVIDENCES. FURTHER, I AM ALSO NOT INCLINED WITH A.O. THAT PEAK CREDIT CANNOT BE TAKEN FROM THE TRANSACTION OF SUCH BANK ACCOUNT. IN FACT, THE A.O. EXCEPT CALLING FOR SUCH INFORMATION FROM BANK HAS NOT MADE ANY FURTHER INQUIRY. THE APPELLANT PRODUCED CERTAIN SALE BILLS WHICH WERE SUMMARILY REJECTED BY A.O. IN FACT, IN THE BANK ACCOUNT THERE ARE CASH DEPOSITS OF VARIED ROUND FIGURE AM OUNT ON VARIOUS DATES. THERE ARE CHEQUE PAYMENTS IN THE NAME OF VARIOUS PERSONS VIZ. RAJ, NEHA, MAHAVIR, KRISHA ETC. THERE ARE CASH WITHDRAWALS OF SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT VIZ. RS. 33000 ON 05/07/2008, RS. 45000 ON 19/08/2008, RS. 90000 ON 24/10/2008 ETC. IT IS THE REFORE A.O. NEITHER MADE PROPER INQUIRY, NOR ANALYZED THE FACT AND EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT. THE A.O. EVEN NOT CONSIDERED SUCH CASH WITHDRAWALS OF SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT. THE A.O. EVEN NOT MENTIONED THE SECTION UNDER WHICH SUCH ADDITION IS MADE. THE DETAIL S OF THIS BANK ACCOUNT CLEARLY REFLECT THAT TRANSACTIONS ARE IN THE NATURE OF TURNOVER AND APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT THAT THE SAME ARE IN THE NATURE OF TRADING OF CLOTH HAS FORCE. OTHERWISE ALSO, ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS. 56, 0 3,130/ - IS NOT CORRECT IN VIEW OF SUBST ANTIAL CASH WITHDRAWALS. NOW COMING TO WORKING OF PEAK GIVEN BY APPELLANT VIDE SUBMISSION DT. 21/08/2012, THE APPELLANT TREATED CASH WITHDRAWAL THOUGH IN NAME OF VARIOUS PERSONS I.E. RAJ, MAHVIR, KRISHNA, NEHA ETC. IT IS THEREFORE, SUCH PEAK WORKING OF RS . 5361 77/ - IS NOT PROPER AND HAS INHERENT ANOMALY OF TAKING SUCH PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUES AS CASH WITHDRAWAL FOR REDEPOSIT OF CASH. THE SAME IS THEREFORE REJECTED. ON THE ORIGINAL EXPLANATION, I AM INCLINED WITH THE APPELLANT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS SHOWN IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH CASH DEPOSIT CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO UNACCOUNTED TRADING OF CLOTH. THIS IS SUPPORTED BY FACTS THAT SOME OF THE SALES BILLS WERE PRODUCED BY APPELLANT BEFORE A.O., THE APPELLANT HIMSELF IS IN THE BUSINESS OF CLOTH TRADING AND JOB WORK IN THE NAME OF PROP, CONCERN 'JEEL CREATIONS', AND THERE ARE CHEQUE PAYMENTS ENTRIES IN THE NAME OF VARIOUS PERSONS FOR WHICH NO INQUIRY WAS MADE BY A.O. BUT THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS WERE ABLE TO CORRELATE SUCH NAME AND SALE IN CASH AND HE HAS SOME PURCHASE BILLS. WITHOUT ACCEPTING THAT SUCH BILLS ARE GENUINE, THE SUBSTANCE BEHIND THE CONTENTIONS CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE PARTICULARLY WHEN PAYMENTS ARE MADE THROUGH CHEQUES I.E. THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THE APPELLANT RELIED ON THE RATIO OF HON' BLE ITAT ORDER DTD. 26/04/2013 IN THE CASE OF SHRI VIMALKUMAR JAVERIMAL BURUD V S . ITO WD. 2(3), AHMEDABAD IN ITA ITA NO. 2911 / AHD/201 3 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 9 - 10 PA GE 5 OF 7 NO.523/AHD/2013 (A.Y. 2008 - 09) WHERE ON SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES HON'BLE ITAT AT PARA 8 OF THIS ORDER HELD THAT - HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT EITHER INCOME BE ESTIMATED BY APPLYING A PROPER NP RATE I.E. 8 % OF TURNOVER AS PROVIDED U/S 4 4 AD OR PEAK BE TAXED WHICH IS RS. 3,98,6607 - AS ON 22 - 06 - 2007. WE ALSO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS ISSUED CHEQUE, THEREFORE, IDENTITY OF PAYEE COULD EASILY BE LOCATED BY A.O. BY MAKING NECESSARY INVESTIGATION. ADMITTEDLY NO SUCH INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN DONE DESPITE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THAT HE HAS CARRIED, OUT ADDITIONAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY RELATING TO SAME BUSINESS I.E. TRADING IN FERROUS AND NON FERROUS METALS. THE TOTAL DEPOSIT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH IS DISCLOSED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOU NT ARE 33,13,0007 - . THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE CARRIED OUT SOME EXTRA BUSINESS ACTIVITY CANNOT BE REJECTED ON DOUBT AND SUSPICIONS. FROM THE COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT IT IS CLEAR THAT PEAK - BANK BALANCE WAS RS.3,98,660 / - AS ON 22 - 06 - 2007. F ROM THIS ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MADE WITHDRAWN OF SCHOOL FEE OF RS.34,400 / - . IN WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ISSUED THE CHEQUE FOR DISCOUNTING THEREFORE WHO HAS DISCOUNTED THE CHEQUE IS NOT KNOWN. LOOKING TO THE TO TALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW IT WILL MEET END OF JUSTICE IF INCOME OF RS. 5 LAKHS OF FERROUS AND NON FERROUS METALS CARRIED BY THE ASSESSEE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON T URNOVER OF RS. 33,13,000 / - BE ESTIMATED AT 5 LAKHS AS AGAINST PEAK BANK OF RS.3,98,660 / - AS ON 22 - 06 - 2007. THIS WILL COVER UP ANY OTHER WITHDRAWAL INCLUDING SCHOOL FEE ETC. PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY AND DIRECT THE A.O. TO TAKE 5 LAKHS AS TAXABLE IN PLACE OF RS. 33,13,000 / - ADDED BY HIM U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961.' IT IS THEREFORE, RATIO OF THIS ORDER IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT ALSO. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT APPELLANT SUO MOTO ON THE FINDINGS OF THIS ASSTT. YEAR, REVISED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FO R A.Y. 2010 - 11 AND ON THE BASIS OF TRANSACTION IN THE BANK ACCOUNT FOR PREVIOUS YEAR 2009 - 10 DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME (BEING FROM TRADING) OF RS. 1,92,597/ - . THIS REVISED RETURN WAS STATED TO BE ACCEPTED BY A.O. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, I AM INCLINED WITH THAT TRANSACTION SHOWN IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ARE UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTION OF CLOTH TRADING WITH TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS. 56,03,130/ - . NOW SINCE APPELLANT HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS IN THIS REGARD EXCEPT THE BANK ACCOUNT AND SOME PURCHASE /SALES BILL, THEREFORE INCOME FROM THIS TURNOV ER HAS TO BE ESTIMATED. APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AF OF THE ACT, NET PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 5% I.E. INCOME OF RS. 2,80,156 IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS. 56,03,130 IS OVER AND ABOVE THE LIMIT OF RS. 50 LACS. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT ALSO MADE CASH PURCHASES WHICH ARE OTHERWISE DISALLOWABLE U/S.43B OF THE ACT. IT IS THEREFORE, I AM PARTLY INCLINED WITH AO THAT APPELLANT'S OWN NET PROFIT FROM ITS OWN BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME 'JEET CREATION' HAS TO BE CONSIDERED. AS PER TRADING ACCOUNT, THE APPELLANT ON TOTAL SALE OF RS. 10,70,942 HAS SHOWN GROSS PROFIT OF RS. 2,38,255 I.E. 22.25% WHICH HAS SHOWN NET PROFIT OF RS. 1,78,364 I.E. 16.65%. BUT, IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR APPELLANT WAS IN RECEIPT OF RS. 1,28,560 AS JOB WORK INCOME AGAINST WHICH THERE ARE DIRECT EXPENDITURE OF RS. 48,000 AS SALARY TO TAILOR. CONSIDERING THIS VIEW, A ITA NO. 2911 / AHD/201 3 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 9 - 10 PA GE 6 OF 7 NET PROFIT SALE OF 12% IS REASONABLE AND MEETS BOTH ENDS A JUSTICE. TAKING THIS NET PROFIT RATE OF 12% ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS. 56,03,130, THE NET PRO FIT OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM THESE TRANSACTIONS COMES TO RS.6,72,375.6 SAYRS. 6,75,000. IT IS THEREFORE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS TAKEN AT RS. 6,75,000. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS. 49,28,130 (56,03,130 - 6,75,000). APPELLANT'S G ROUND IS THEREFORE PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED OF THE RELIEF SO GRANTED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US . 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 6 . WE HAVE NOTED THAT LEARNED C IT(A) , ON THE BASIS OF HIS WELL REASONED AND DETAILED ANALYSIS, PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS THAT CASH DEPOSITS PERTAIN TO UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS TURNOVER. WHILE DOING SO, HE HAS RELIE D UPON THIS TRIBUNAL S DECISION IN THE CASE OF S HRI VIMAL KUMAR JAVERIMAL BURUD VS . ITO (ITA NO.523/AHD/2013 ; ORDER DATED 26.04.2013). A PPROVING THIS LINE OF REASONING , VIDE JUDGEMENT DATED 19.11.2013 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . PRADEEP SHANTILAL PATEL (TA X AP PEAL NO.899 OF 2013), HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS DECLINED TO ADMIT THE QUESTION OF LAW TO THE EFFECT WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, HON BLE ITAT WAS RIGHT IN CONSIDERING IN LAW, THE DEPOSITS IN SAVING S BANK ACCOUNT OF THE A SSESSEE AS TRADING RECEIPT WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF BUSINESS AS RECORD . IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTEDLY CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING JEANS AND THE CHEQUE RECEIPTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAME ARE NOT EVEN D OUBTED, THERE IS NO REASON TO HOLD THAT THESE UNACCOUNTED CASH DEPOSITS DO NOT PERTAIN TO ASSESSEE S BUSINESS. THE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A) ARE VERY REASONABLE AND DO NOT, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. WE, THEREFORE, APPROVE THE SA ME AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. ITA NO. 2911 / AHD/201 3 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 9 - 10 PA GE 7 OF 7 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF APRIL , 2017 . SD/ - SD/ - S S GODARA PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: 27 TH DAY OF APRIL , 201 7 . PBN/* COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHME DABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD