Imran Ibrahim Badshah Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Assessee didnot file return for the year under consideration. As per AIMS module information received that assessee has deposited the amount of Rs.16,84,100/- as cash during the demonetization period. Case was reopened notice was issued accordingly. In response of which assessee filed return of income. AO observed that assessee is engaged in the business of imitation jewellery and had declared his income of Rs.8,67,094/- the gross profit @ 8% of gross receipt of Rs.1,08,38,664/- u/s 44AD. Assessee has furnished the computation of income for receipt of Rs.1,08,38,664/- u/s 44AD but did not furnish the balance receipt of Rs.16,81,802/- which remained un-explained and therefore AO treated the amount of Rs.16,81,802/- as unexplained and added u/s 69A.
Before CIT (A) it was argued that that asssessee had declared his total business receipts of Rs.1,08,38,664/- in the return filed on presumptive basis u/s 44AD, while the AO considered the same at Rs.1,25,20,466/- based on the bank entries and taxed the difference of Rs.16,81,802/- as unexplained money u/s 69A. The cash deposited in the bank was savings out of the profits earned from the earlier years and household savings of the family, which was deposited in the bank during the demonetization period.
