TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duly served whereas as per explanation and other material placed on record no notice has been properly served upon the assessee appellant. Therefore, assessment made is illegal and void abinitio. (2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A), was not correct in sustaining addition of ₹ 2,47,390/- by holding that payment of ₹ 82,46,354/- has been received by the assessee appellant merely relying upon the findings of the A.O. and books of third party without any material or evidence that payment has been received by the assessee appellant. 3. That the appellant craves to add or amend the grounds of appeal. 3. At the outset, it was found that the appeal was filed late by 162 days. The assessee subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as reasonable sufficient cause for filing the belated appeal. Sd/_ (Deponent) Verification: I, Malkiat Singh the above name deponent do hereby affirm and declare that the above stated facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Sd/- (Deponent) 4. In view of the above contentions made by the assessee in the affidavit, we accept the plea of the assessee for condonation of delay, as the assessee has explained reasonable and sufficient cause for filing the appeal belatedly. Accordingly, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 5. In the course of present appellate proceedings, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee did not press ground No.1, hence, we do not consider it essenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Union Vs. the ITO Ward 1(3), Bathinda, the A.O. is directed to apply the net profit rate of 3% on the said gross receipts of ₹ 82,46,354/- as against the net profit rate of 10% applied by the A.O. and to work out the addition accordingly. Now, aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, Sh. P.N. Arora, submitted that the addition has been made on the basis of alleged statement of payment of Carriage Expenses at ₹ 82,46,354/-, which were never received by the assessee. He further submitted that the A.O. has not made any substantial enquiry regarding the mode of payment and the evidence who received the payment and as to why Sh. Kesar Singh has not d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions with reference to facts, evidence and material placed on record, including written submissions filed by the assessee. From the perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is obvious that the assessee has not declared the receipts of ₹ 82,46,354/- received on account of Carriage Charges from Sh. Kesar Singh, in its original return of income as well as in response to notice under section 148 of the Act, for the assessment year under reference and the addition of ₹ 8,24,640/- was made by the AO by applying net profit rate of 10%. However, the Ld. CIT(A), restricted the addition to 3%. After considering entire fact situation of the case , we are of the considered opinion that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
