9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudicating the issue afresh. Needless to say the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. Ground no. 2 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Addition of cash sales - Assessee has also not fully established as to how the cash sales are genuine as the records produced before us which were already produced before the AO has not been taken into consideration properly by the AO - It will be appropriate to remand back this issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after verifying the evidences produced before the AO. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. Ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the ld. AO in levying interest u/s. 234A/B/C of the Act. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the ld. AO in initiating penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition of ₹ 4,41,845/- under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Act related to bogus cash sales credited in cash book as well as ₹ 72,728/- related to opening balance of cash book. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submits that there is delay of 19 days in filing the appeal. Ld. AR submitted that Ground No. 1 is not pressed in respect of the challenge to action of the Assessing Officer as to converting limited scrutiny for Assessment Year 2017-18 into complete scrutiny for Assessment Year 2015-16. 6. As regards ground no. 2, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that in the business of assessee there are walk-in-customers who come to the assessee and buy the birds and go away. In such kind of business, it is practically not possible to even maintain record of such customers and hence question of maintaining ledgers and confirmations would not arise at all. Ld. AR made alternative submission that net income should have been determined in terms of Section 44AF of the Act. The receipts in question represented sales of the assessee made during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer has not brought on record any cogent material so as to even remotely demonstrate that the underlying sum is not on account of sales and in such situation net income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ural justice. Ground no. 2 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 13. As regards ground no. 3, it is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer has not doubted purchases made by the assessee and simply made the addition of cash sales and accepted rest of the sales but on what basis and on what reason has not been demonstrated clearly in the Assessment Order. In fact the assessee has also not fully established as to how the cash sales are genuine as the records produced before us which were already produced before the Assessing Officer has not been taken into consideration properly by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
