9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee s substantive ground to this effect. Addition u/s. 40(a)(ia)in view of the rejections of books of accounts - We are of the opinion that the same has no legs to stand once the assessee s books stood rejected as per hon ble jurisdictional high court s decision in Indwell Constructions vs. CIT [ 1998 (3) TMI 121 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] that no disallowance could be made once an assessee s profits are estimated at the fixed percentage of it s turnover. We, thus, accept the assessee s instant third substantive grievance. Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credits - share application / premium and unsecured loan - only plea is that no such amounts had been collected in the relevant previous year so as to form subject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the case was selected for a limited purpose of examining share premium received and increase in unsecured loans, therefore, ought to have deleted the additions made on account of other issues. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee clarified that there is no share premium and unsecured loans received during the period relevant to the subject assessment year, therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer are without jurisdiction, are required to be deleted in toto. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the additions are made by the Assessing Officer are against the CBDT instructions No.7/2014, dated 26/09/2014 and therefore, sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ys. The delay is resulted on account of no administrative staff at the administrative office and the person who has received the order failed to contact the Managing Director / Director of the company for appropriate action. It is further submitted that the delay of 344 days is not on account of contumacious conduct or deliberate. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon ble Bench is requested to condone the delay of 344 days to admit the appeal to decide the issues on merits. 4. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the assessee, we are of the view that the reason for the delay was as the assessee-company s employee who received the CIT (A) s order and did not inform to the concerned higher officials an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce the assessee s books stood rejected (supra) as per hon ble jurisdictional high court s decision in Indwell Constructions vs. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 771 (AP) that no disallowance could be made once an assessee s profits are estimated at the fixed percentage of it s turnover. We, thus, accept the assessee s instant third substantive grievance. 8. This leaves us with the assessee s second substantive grievance of unexplained cash credits addition of ₹ 1,43,67,992/- in respect of alleged share application / premium and unsecured loan, as the case may be. 9. Learned counsel s only plea is that no such amounts had been collected in the relevant previous year so as to form subject matter of section 68 addition. Faced with this situation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
