9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.2023. 3) That CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of the AO in not following procedures laid out by hon'ble CBDT for dealing in limited scrutiny cases as well as for conversion of a case from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny. 4) Without prejudice to ground nos. 1 to 3, CIT(A) has erred in dismissing appeal without deciding appeal on merit of the case properly and judicially. 5) Without prejudice to ground nos. 1 to 3, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 29,64,532/- made by the AO by invoking provisions of section 69 and treating cash balance shown in the books of account as cash introduced from alleged undisclosed income without considering the facts and circumstances of the case properly and judicially. 6) Without prejudice to ground nos. 1 to 3, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 1,28,386/- made by the AO on account of difference in income/receipts as per Form 26AS and Profit & Loss Account by disregarding method of accounting followed by assessee firm in this regard and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not find favor with the A.O for the following reasons (as culled out from the assessment order): "i) The assessee has filed the copy of cash book only for the date 31.03.2016 in which opening balance and closing balance is shown Rs. 2964532/-. The assessee was required to file the copy of cash book but not only the copy of one page. For want of completed cash book the sources of accumulation of cash balance of Rs. 2964532/- as on 31.03.2016 could not be verified. ii) From trading profit and loss account it is found that the assessee has not shown any purchase of materials like sand, gitti or other. The labour payment is shown only Rs. 1660/- which is not for construction work. The assessee has also not shown any payment for transportation. Therefore the reply of the assessee on point No. 3 given in S.No. 1 are not acceptable. iii) In the balance sheet the assessee has shown the amount of Rs. 20940997/- as work in progress as asset without showing any expenses of purchases and construction." 4. As is discernible from the assessment order, the assessee firm, in its attempt to substantiate the cash in hand of Rs.29.64 lacs (approx.) that it had disclosed in its belated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ash book substantiating the source of cash-in-hand of Rs.29.64 lacs (supra) was duly available before him but he had grossly erred in not considering the same. 8. I have thoughtfully considered the claim of the Ld. AR and am unable to persuade myself to subscribe to the same. I say so for the reason that as both the cash book and cash flow statement that the assessee filed before the CIT(Appeals) were in the nature of additional evidence; therefore, the same could have only been filed with the first appellate authority with a request for admission of the same under Rule 46A of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, which I find, it had failed to do. Accordingly, I am of a strong conviction that no infirmity emerges from the order of the CIT(Appeals), who had rightly declined to take cognizance of the aforesaid documents, viz., cash book/cash flow statement that the assessee firm had most casually filed before him. 9. Be that as it may, I shall now deal with the sustainability of the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) who had approved the addition of Rs.29.64 lacs (supra) made by the A.O. As is discernible from the assessment order, I find that case of the assessee firm was se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein the cash-in-hand was disclosed at Rs.29.64 lacs (supra) in my view would be nothing better than a mere eye wash which could not have been acted upon by the A.O. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) who had rightly approved the addition of Rs.29.64 lacs (supra) made by the A.O, I uphold the same. 12. Apropos the addition of Rs.1,28,386/- made by the A.O with respect to the difference in the interest income disclosed by the assessee firm in its return of income as against that shown in its Form 26AS, I find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR. As the case of the assessee firm was selected for limited scrutiny, the A.O. could not have ventured to an issue that did not form the basis for taking up the case for scrutiny assessment. I am of the view that the A.O without getting the said limited scrutiny converted into complete scrutiny as per the CBDT Circular No.20/2015 dated 29.12.2015, had traversed beyond his jurisdiction and made the impugned addition of Rs.1,28,386/-. My aforesaid view is fortified by the order of the "Division bench" of the ITAT, Raipur, in the case of Aryadeep Complex (P) Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, (2022) 219 TTJ 735 (Raipur), wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
