Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: cpt :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: VAT Audit :: empanelment :: VAT RATES :: due date for vat payment :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: form 3cd
 
 
From the Courts »
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International
 Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 International Taxation Vs. Virage Logic International India
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Vs. Moderate Leasing And Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
 ITO vs. Vikram A. Pradhan (ITAT Mumbai)

Shri Ritesh Jindal, C/o Shri S.K. Bansal, CA, 101, Kochar Market, First Floor, Jhajjar Road, Rohtak, Haryana. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Narnaul.
December, 16th 2014
                IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                                  `F' : NEW DELHI
                      DELHI BENCH `F

           BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND
                            VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                SHRI ABY T. VARKEY,

                              No.2032/Del/2013
                          ITA No.
                                          2009-10
                        Assessment Year : 2009-


Shri Ritesh Jindal,             Vs.    Income Tax Officer,
C/o Shri S.K. Bansal,                  Ward-
                                       Ward-1,
          Kochar Market,
CA, 101, Kochar                        Narnaul.
First Floor, Jhajjar Road,
Rohtak,
Haryana.
PAN : AIMPJ2083L.

     (Appellant)                           (Respondent)

              Appellant by       :    Shri S.K. Bansal, CA.
              Respondent by      :    Shri Vikram Sahay, Sr.DR.

                                 ORDER

PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP :

      This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of
learned CIT(A), Rohtak dated 1st February, 2013 for the AY 2009-10.


2.    Ground Nos.1 & 2 of the assessee's appeal read as under:-


       "1. That the ld.A.O. has erred in law as well as on facts
       in applying provisions of section 69/69A of Income Tax
       Act. The ld.CIT(A) also has erred in law as well as on
       facts in not deciding the issue on application of
       provisions of section 69/69A.

       2. That the ld.A.O. has erred in law as well as on facts
       in making addition of Rs.2593400 on account of alleged
       unexplained cash deposit in bank. The ld.CIT(A) has
       further erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing
       Ground No.1 against addition of Rs.2593400 on account
                                   2                        ITA-2032/Del/2013



       of alleged unexplained cash deposits in Savings Bank
       account No.61032028094 with SBBJ without considering
       the books of accounts and the relevant documents."




3.   At the time of hearing before us, it is submitted by the learned
counsel that the Assessing Officer made the addition of `25,93,400/- on
account of unexplained deposit with State Bank of Bikaner. He stated
that the assessee was carrying on the business of consignment agent
as per which, the assessee was receiving the goods i.e. cloth and after
the sale, the amount was deposited in the bank and cheque was
issued. Therefore, the addition, if any, can be made only for the profit
from such consignment business.        He further submitted that in fact
there was no net profit from such business because assessee was
getting commission of around 2% and total turnover was around `25
lakhs. That the expenditure for carrying on of such business was more
than `50,000/- and therefore, there was no net profit from such
business. Accordingly, no income from the consignment business was
shown in the books of account.      He, therefore, submitted that the
addition of `25,93,400/- should be deleted. He alternatively submitted
that the total peak credit in the assessee's bank account was
`2,73,772/-. The Assessing Officer made the addition for total amount
deposited with the bank in the whole year. That there was frequent
deposit and withdrawal of the amount and therefore, the addition
under Section 69/69A made by the Assessing Officer can be only in
respect of peak credit in the assessee's bank account and cannot be
for the total transaction between the assessee and the bank during the
whole year.


4.   Learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of
authorities below. He stated that as per the information received by
the Revenue, it was gathered that the assessee has an account with
State Bank of Bikaner which is not disclosed for the purpose of income
                                    3                       ITA-2032/Del/2013



tax.     That the assessee has not disclosed any business of cloth on
consignment basis. That when the assessee was asked to explain the
bank account, he made out a story of cloth business on consignment
basis.     He, therefore, submitted that the Assessing Officer rightly
rejected the assessee's story of consignment business.       He further
submitted that the total deposit in the bank is unexplained and
therefore, the addition for the entire deposit was rightly made by the
Assessing Officer. The same should be sustained.


5.       We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides
and perused relevant material placed before us.          So far as the
assessee's claim of consignment business is concerned, we find that in
the return of income, the assessee has not disclosed any profit or loss
from the consignment business. Any assessee who is actually carrying
on a business and is filing the return of income will disclose the result
of such business, whether there is profit or loss, in the return of
income. The assessee claimed carrying on of such business only after
he was asked to explain the credits in his bank account with State
Bank of Bikaner.        No documentary evidence in support of the
consignment business is produced.       In view of the above, we agree
with the finding of the lower authorities that the claim of business of
cloth on consignment basis is unproved. However, we find force in the
alternative contention of the learned counsel that when there is a
running bank account and there is frequent withdrawal and deposit of
the money than the total of the deposit in the bank account cannot be
added as undisclosed income but it is only the peak credit in the bank
account which can be added as unexplained investment. Copy of the
bank account is placed at page 13 & 14 of the assessee's paper book.
We find that the highest credit is on 30th July, 2008 which was
`2,73,772/-.     No satisfactory explanation for the source of such
investment is given. We, therefore, sustain the addition of `2,73,772/-
                                   4                         ITA-2032/Del/2013






as against the addition of `25,93,400/- made by the Assessing Officer
for unexplained deposit in the bank account.


6.   Ground Nos.3, 4 & 5 of the assessee's appeal read as under:-


      "3. That the ld.A.O. has erred in law as well as on facts
      in making addition of Rs.45998 on account of alleged
      difference in account of M/s Aryabandhu. The ld.CIT(A)
      has also erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing
      the said ground No.2.

      4. That the ld.A.O. has erred in law as well as on facts
      in making addition of Rs.71011 on account of alleged
      low household withdrawals. The ld.CIT(A) has also
      erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing the said
      ground No.3.

      5. That the ld.A.O. has erred in law as well as on facts
      in disallowing carriage expenses amounting to Rs.4127.
      The ld.CIT(A) has also erred in law as well as on facts in
      dismissing the said ground No.4."

7.   At the time of hearing before us, no argument was advanced in
support of any of the above grounds. Accordingly, ground Nos.3 to 5 of
the assessee's appeal are treated as not pressed and rejected as such.


8.   In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
     Decision pronounced in the open Court on 12th December, 2014.


                 Sd/-                                 Sd/-
                 VARKEY)
         (ABY T. VARKEY)                             AGRAWAL)
                                               (G.D. AGRAWAL)
        JUDICIAL MEMBER                        VICE PRESIDENT

Dated : 12.12.2014
VK.
                                  5                        ITA-2032/Del/2013



Copy forwarded to: -

1.   Appellant    : Shri Ritesh Jindal,
                 C/o Shri S.K. Bansal, CA, 101, Kochar Market,
                 First Floor, Jhajjar Road, Rohtak, Haryana.


2.   Respondent : Income Tax Officer,
               Ward-
               Ward-1, Narnaul.
3.   CIT
4.   CIT(A)
5.   DR, ITAT

                             Assistant Registrar

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Application Management Solutions Application Management System Application Management Software System Application Management Development Application Management Software Development

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions