9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO, he could not have made addition and some other grounds which did not form part of reasons recorded by him. Similar view that taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Jet Airways [ 2010 (4) TMI 431 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY] and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs CIT[ 2011 (6) TMI 4 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Therefore, in view of the aforesaid legal position, we find merit in the submission of ld. AR of the assessee that in absence of addition on the ground which did not form part of reasons recorded, the AO could not have make addition on some other ground, therefore, the plea of the ld. AR of the assessee is allowed and assessment order dated 11.08.2017 is set-aside. - Decided in favour of assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued to assessee on 21.06.2016, 29.07.2016 and 04.01.2017. The assessee not furnished any reply. The AO on the basis of such information, has a reason to believe that income of assessee to the extent of ₹ 18,14,000/- has escaped assessment. Notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 23.03.2017. In response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 06.07.2017 declaring income of ₹ 1,43,770/-. The AO provided the reasons recorded along with the notice under section 143(2) of the Act and proceeded for assessment. 3. During the assessment, the AO noted that assessee is involved in business of running a Bakery in the Ayesha Bakery, Dhobi Talav, Valsad. The assessee was aske ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as well as addition in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). There was delay of about 144 days in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed application for condonation of delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) not condoned the delay. Surprisingly, the ld. CIT(A), despite not condoning the delay, gave his finding of merit of the case as well and upheld the addition @12% of turnover. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 4. We have heard the submission of ld. Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and Sr. Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue and have gone through the orders of Lower Authorities care ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010-11 3764845/- 229838/- 6.10% 154694.20 4.11% 2011-12 5847600/- 422785/- 7.23% 340550.60 5.82% 2012-13 6067670/- 440930/- 7.27% 358935.60 5.92% 2013-14 7020500/- 453100/- 6.45% 198660.00 2.83% 2014-15 9894500/- 614755/- 6.21% 218497.00 2.21% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Mohmed Juned Dadani (supra) held that when on ground of which reopening of assessment was made by AO, he could not have made addition and some other grounds which did not form part of reasons recorded by him. 9. We find that similar view that taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Jet Airways (supra) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs CIT (336 ITR 136 Delhi). Therefore, in view of the aforesaid legal position, we find merit in the submission of ld. AR of the assessee that in absence of addition on the ground which did not form part of reasons recorded, the AO could not have make addition on some other ground, therefore, the plea of the ld. AR of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
