9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) dated 24.12.2019 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 with the delay of 119 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee filed an appeal online on 20.01.2023 against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 24.11.2022. The assessee submitted that he was under bona-fide impression that the filing of an appeal in online mode is a complete and valid procedure and he was unaware of the fact that sending hard copies to the respective registrar of ITAT after filing on appeal online is also required. On 19.05.2023, the assessee submitted all the hard copies through speed post which reached on 22.05.2023, causing delay of 120 days. He submitted that the delay was due to assessee's unawareness regarding fili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed, details of agreements, quantitative details of bananas purchased / sold, details of traders to whom bananas were sold etc. Hence, in the absence of any evidence, the AO observed that it is difficult to accept that the assessee has correctly declared his total income in the return of income, accordingly, estimated the income @8% on the total credits in bank accounts of Rs. 3,60,84,530/-, which works out to Rs. 28,86,760/-. The AO observed that since the assessee under reported his income and the assessed income is greater than the income determined u/s 143(1)(a), initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee filed written arguments. Ground No.1 and 4 are general in nature which do not require specific adjudication. 6. Ground No.2 is related to estimation of gross profit @8% on total gross receipts. wherein, the assessee contended that the AO estimated the profit @8% on total gross receipts at much higher side without any basis and the Ld.CIT(A) is also not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 25,27,150/- made by the AO. He, therefore pleaded to set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities and delete the addition made by the AO. 7. Per contra, the Ld.DR contended that the CIT(A) has correctly upheld the addition made by the AO. He, therefore, pleaded to uphold the order passed by the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
