9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 1023X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d all the unsecured loans taken during the year and the same has been rightly directed by ld. PCIT to be examined in the set aside proceedings. Addition to the capital account - A perusal of the bank account of the assessee placed that Rs. 21,50,000/- was received in lieu of agreement for construction and out of this sum Rs. 15,00,000/- was transferred in March 2012 and Rs. 1,00,000/- was transferred from other sources of the assessee on 04.11.2011. In our view, the assessee has duly explained the source of capital addition in the account of the proprietorship concern which ld. AO has examined properly and the source of addition to capital account stands duly explained and no further examination needs to be carried out by the ld. AO on this issue and, thus, the finding of the ld. PCIT on this issue is reversed. Addition of fixed assets - There is no information provided by the assessee before the ld. AO and nor proper explanation was given before the ld. PCIT also and therefore, this issue has been rightly set aside by ld. PCIT to the ld. AO for doing the needful. Sundry creditors - We find that the assessee provided complete details of the sundry creditors with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h is arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 147 of the Act dated 03.02.2016. 2. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On perusal of the file records, it is observed that the case has been regularly listed for hearing on more than 20 occasions since 18.11.2019. Neither the assessee has appeared nor any authorized person on behalf of the assessee represented before this Tribunal. We, therefore, dispose off this appeal with the assistance of ld. D/R and the available records. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: 1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Department has erred in passing the order u/s 263 for making fresh assessment in as much as the order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) after making proper and adequate investigation is not erroneous. 2. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Department has passed the order u/s 263 for making fresh assessment without considering the submission made by the appellant in the course of hearing because all the issues r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case before the td. Pr. CAT. Ko-17, Kol at Uttarapan Complex, Manicktala Civic Centre, DS-4, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700 054. 5. After issuing the show cause notice, revisionary proceedings were carried out and after considering the submissions of the assessee, ld. PCIT came to a conclusion that relevant issues relating to computation of gross profit, capitalization of the amount of Rs. 16,00,000/-, genuineness of unsecured loans and sundry creditors remained to be examined by the ld. Assessing Officer (in short ld. AO ) and, therefore, the assessment order dated 03.02.2016 is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Ld. AO was directed to re-compute the total income and the order was set aside for the limited purpose of examination of issues relating to gross profit at the time of survey u/s 133A of the Act i.e. to capital account introduction, the investment in fixed assets, to call for details from the assessee, to explain unsecured loan and sundry creditors. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, a paper book dated 27.12.2019 containing 48 pages is placed on record con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd., Rs. 11,08,000/- from Krishna Apartment Pvt. Ltd., Rs. 5,00,000/- from Reliable Construction and Rs. 1,30,000/- from Vishnu Construction is taken during the year. But ld. AO has only confirmed the addition of unsecured loan of Rs. 17,00,000/- which the assessee himself admitted to be unable to explain. Therefore, so far as the issue of unsecured loans are concerned, ld. AO has not examined all the unsecured loans taken during the year and the same has been rightly directed by ld. PCIT to be examined in the set aside proceedings. 9.3. Regarding the issue of addition to the capital account, the assessee claimed to have received an advance against the agreement for construction of a building at Rs. 21,50,000/-. Out of this sum, Rs. 16,00,000/- was claimed to have been transferred to proprietorship concern. The source of this addition was the advance received against some construction project. A perusal of the bank account of the assessee placed at page 38 of the paper book shows that Rs. 21,50,000/- was received in lieu of agreement for construction and out of this sum Rs. 15,00,000/- was transferred in March 2012 and Rs. 1,00,000/- was transferred from other sources of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
