9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3(3) of the Act is void since the return was declared defective - no such plea was taken during the assessment proceedings in which the assessee not only participated but even his statement was recorded. It is also to be noted that the case was selected for scrutiny by CASS which is computer based selection and not manual selection of the cases for scrutiny. So, the plea of the AR that the return was defective does not have any basis. In the absence of any third party evidence in the form of confirmation or admission by the original counsel who filed the return with regard to the error attributed to him, the affidavit of the assessee filed at the time of assessment whose unsigned and unverified extract has been filed before the CIT(A), h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,93,500/- Later the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act ) was issued on 28.8.2015. Subsequently, a detailed questionnaire alongwith notice u/s. 14291) of the Act was issued on 6.10.2015. In response to the notice u/s. 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act the AR for the assessee attended the proceedings from time to time and furnished the required details and information. The assessee has declared income from business at ₹ 1,93,500/- in the return. A perusal of scheduled of return it was observed by the AO that assessee had declared gross turnover / gross receipt at ₹ 96,50,000/- from business and profit was declared u/s. 44AD at ₹ 1,93,500 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. Assessee stated that he was not in a position to produce the said counsel as he was no residing at the address known to him. Accordingly, AO observed that assessee had declared income of ₹ 1,93,500/- out of total gross receipts of ₹ 96,50,000/- u/s. 44AD which is not acceptable in view of provision u/s. 44AD of the Act. Hence, he assessed the income at ₹ 7,72,000/- @8% of gross receipt of ₹ 96,50,000/- and made the addition of ₹ 5,78,500/- vide his order dated 18.3.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Against the said assessment order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 27.4.2018 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the impugned order, assessee is i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nection, it is observed, that no such plea was taken during the assessment proceedings in which the assessee not only participated but even his statement was recorded. It is also to be noted that the case was selected for scrutiny by CASS which is computer based selection and not manual selection of the cases for scrutiny. So, the plea of the AR that the return was defective does not have any basis. In the absence of any third party evidence in the form of confirmation or admission by the original counsel who filed the return with regard to the error attributed to him, the affidavit of the assessee filed at the time of assessment whose unsigned and unverified extract has been filed before the Ld. CIT(A), has very little evidentiary value as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
