9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee. Separate addition with regard to undisclosed investment in unaccounted purchases against receivables - Since there was no corroborative evidence to substantiate the co-relation of transactions, in our opinion, once the income of the assessee is estimated, there cannot be any further additions. This view of ours is fortified by the judgment in the case of Indwell Construction Vs. CIT [ 1998 (3) TMI 121 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] . Accordingly, we are inclined to dismiss the other grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. - ITA Nos. 4/Bang/2020, 69/Bang and 90/Bang/2020 - - - Dated:- 1-4-2021 - Chandra Poojari , Member ( A ) And Beena Pillai , Member ( J ) For the Appellant : Muzaffar Hussain , CIT ( DR ) and Ramesh Kumar A. , Addl. CIT ( DR ) For the Respondents : Sheetal S. Borkar , Advocate ORDER Per Chandra Poojari , Member ( A ) 1. ITA No. 4/Bang/2020 is an appeal by the Revenue. ITA Nos. 69 and 90/Bang/2020 are cross appeals. 2. ITA No. 4/Bang/2020 The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in estimating the profit @ 4% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 is partly allowed. In our considered opinion, after holding this in para 6 that the case of assessee squarely falls outside the purview of section 153A, learned CIT(A) should have held that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s. 153A is bad, in law and he should have allowed the appeal of the assessee instead of holding that the appeal is partly allowed. Therefore, we hold that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s. 153A is bad in law and therefore, other grounds regarding merit of various addition are academic and no adjudication is called for about those grounds. 6. We find that in the facts of the present case, this Tribunal order is squarely applicable and hence, respectfully following this Tribunal order, we hold that in the present case also, the Assessment Order passed by the AO under section 153A for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 are bad in law and therefore, other grounds regarding merits of various additions in these two years are academic and no adjudication is called for about those grounds in these two years. 4. Being so, the appeal filed by Department is infructuous and accordingly dismissed. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ari Industries, Puttur. 8. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued calling for details. Finally assessment was concluded u/s. 143(3), vide order dated 29.12.2017. In the order assessment, the AO has made following additions and thereby raised demand of ₹ 1,11,42,324/-. 1. Profit estimated on unrecorded sales 56,24,892 2. Unexplained investment in purchases 1,38,58.470 3. Unexplained assets - receivables 38.97.934 4. Unexplained cash credits u/s.68 7.41.126 TOTAL ADDITIONS 2.41,22,422 9. The CIT(A) observed on these issues as follows: 5.14 I have considered the facts of the case and case laws relied on by the AR regarding loose sheet, dairy unearthed during search/survey, the ratio laid down in the said cases are not applicable on the basis of facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. However, I fully agree with the fact that, sales and purchases should be net off and further al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Nagpur. SMS in the cell phones of the employees of at Nagpur wherein contents were mentioned in coded words and numbers. As per para 5.2.9 of his order in this year, although learned CIT(A) has noted that in the business of Arecanut, the books of accounts disclose profit @ 2-3% but while computing income of unaccounted turnover taxes and levies etc. are evaded and therefore the profit will be higher and he directed the AO to assess income @ 4% of undisclosed turnover as against 12 % rate adopted by the AO. In the written submissions dated 11.06.2020 filed by the learned AR of the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16, this is one of the submissions that the coded words and figures found noted in impounded materials were disclosed in audited books of accounts and therefore, no addition is justified in this regard but no evidence was filed before us in support of this contention and therefore, this argument is rejected. This was an alternative oral argument that having noted that in the business of Arecanut, the books of accounts disclose profit 2-3%, learned CIT(A) was not justified in directing the AO to assess income a 4% of undisclosed turnover as against 12 % rate adopted by the AO. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
