9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 63 - AT - Income TaxValidity of the reopening of the assessment u/s. 147 - HELD THAT - Neither written submission nor any argument has been addressed on behalf of the assessee on this issue. Even a perusal of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) reveals that this issue was taken by the assessee vide ground No. 1 in appeal before him and the Ld. CIT(A) has noted that the assessee has not brought on record any evidence to show that the Assessing Officer's action was not legally tenable. In view of this Ground No. 1 of the assessee is dismissed. Addition of deposits/estimation of sales figures - HELD THAT - As per the information obtained by the Assessing Officer from commercial tax authorities, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had shown less sales as compared to the said information. Further, the Assessing Officer had added back certain deposits in the bank account of the assessee treating the same as undisclosed sales proceeds of the assessee. Assessing Officer applied GP rate on the said deposits. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that there were issues which the AO had not dealt with in his order. He noted that the estimation of sales figures of the Assessing Officer was not correct. However, at the same time, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the Assessing Officer's requisitions for information were not fully complied with by the assessee. Therefore, he directed the Assessing Officer to undertake the exercises again to arrive at correct sales figures and proceed to calculate the undisclosed business income, if any, accordingly. No reason to interfere in the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A). Addition on account of the alleged gift received by the assessee from his mother - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has given a categorical findings that the assessee had not submitted any documents to prove that ₹ 1,40,000/- has been given by his mother to him. Neither any documents nor any bank statements was furnished, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer in this respect.
Issues:
1. Validity of reopening of assessment u/s. 147 2. Estimation of sales figures and undisclosed income 3. Addition of alleged gift received by the assessee Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of reopening of assessment u/s. 147 The assessee contested the validity of the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee failed to provide any evidence to challenge the Assessing Officer's action. The CIT(A) noted the absence of evidence from the assessee to show that the Assessing Officer's action was legally untenable. Consequently, Ground No. 1 challenging the validity of the reopening was dismissed. Issue 2: Estimation of sales figures and undisclosed income Ground Nos. 2 & 3 raised concerns about the deposits and estimation of sales figures for the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer had added back certain deposits in the assessee's bank account as undisclosed sales proceeds and applied a GP rate. The CIT(A) acknowledged discrepancies in the Assessing Officer's estimation of sales figures but also noted that the assessee had not fully complied with the requisitions for information. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to reevaluate the sales figures and calculate any undisclosed income accurately. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere with the order. Issue 3: Addition of alleged gift received by the assessee The assessee contested the addition of ?1,40,000 as a gift received from his mother. However, the assessee failed to provide any documentation or bank statements to substantiate the claim. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision due to the lack of evidence provided by the assessee. Upon review, the ITAT found no grounds to overturn the CIT(A)'s order regarding the alleged gift. In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the appeal of the assessee, upholding the decisions made by the CIT(A) regarding the validity of the reopening of assessment, estimation of sales figures, and the addition of the alleged gift. The appeal was deemed meritless, and the decision was made on the 8th of February, 2022 in Kolkata.
|
