IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. No: 1298/AHD/2013 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Shri Deven Jashvantlal V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shah 604, Mahavir Villa, 3(2), Surat Deepa Complex, Adajan Road, Surat (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AQBPS7076H Appellant by : Shri Anil R. Shah, AR Respondent by : Shri Pradipkumar Majumdar,Sr. D.R. ORDER Date of hearing : 19 -10-2016 Date of Pronouncement : 20 -10-2016 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal by Assessee is preferred against order of Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Surat dated 22.02.2013 pertaining to A.Y. 2008-09. 2 ITA No. 1298/Ahd/2013 . A.Y. 2008-09 2. sum and substance of grievance of assessee is that ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 16,27,800/- added by A.O. u/s. 69 of Act. 3. assessee is in business of share trading and has derived brokerage during year under consideration. 4. While scrutinizing return of income, A.O. came to know that assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 16,27,800/- in Surat People s Co-op. Bank during year under consideration. assessee was asked to explain source of deposit of cash. Assessee filed bank statement of Surat People s Co-op. Bank and Bank of India. A.O. noticed that assessee was maintaining another bank account in Surat People s Co-op. Bank which was not disclosed in balance sheet. Assessee was once again asked to explain source of cash deposited in said bank. Assessee filed detailed reply stating that deposits were out of withdrawals made from other banks and in any case entire deposit cannot be treated as unexplained income of assessee and only peak credit should be considered for additions if any. This submission of assessee did not find any favour with A.O. who made addition of entire cash deposit of Rs. 16,27,800/-. 5. Assessee carried matter before ld. CIT(A) and reiterated its claim of addition of peak credit only. ld. CIT(A) was not convinced and confirmed assessment. 3 ITA No. 1298/Ahd/2013 . A.Y. 2008-09 6. Aggrieved by this, assessee is before us. ld. counsel for assessee drew our attention to reply filed before A.O. and stated that assessee has given complete computation of peak credit of Rs. 5,83,877/- which has not been considered by revenue authorities. It is say of ld. counsel that entire deposit cannot be added as same is out of business transaction of assessee. Per contra, ld. D.R. strongly supported findings of revenue authorities. 7. Having heard rival contentions, we have carefully perused orders of authorities below. We find force in contention of ld. counsel that entire cash deposit cannot be treated as unexplained income of assessee. We also find that assessee has given detailed working of peak credit. Therefore, in interest of justice and fair play, we restore this issue to files of A.O. assessee is directed to furnish working of peak credit and A.O. is directed to verify same and if found correct, peak credit amount should be taken as undisclosed income of assessee. 8. In result, appeal filed by Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in Open Court on 20 - 10- 2016. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. GODARA) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad: True Copy Deven Jashvantlal v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 3(2), Surat