9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 965X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Appeal is barred by limitation by 378 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The affidavit reads as under: "I Shama Akil Sarang would like to state that I am having serious health problems (including frequent hospitalizations) and under the influence of heavy medications, majority of the times I am on bed rest since August 2013. I received order of CIT(A)-24, Mumbai some where around 15th January 2014 But I just received the envelope containing the order but was not in a position to open and read the same due to above reason. Even till date I am in the same situation and just last week only opened the envelope and forwarded the same to my AR Advocate Sanjaykumar A Thakkar. Further on 24th A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see and accordingly came to the conclusion that the assessee has explained the sources to the extent of Rs. 3,03,352/. After giving credit for the same, the ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition to the extent of Rs. 2,03,269/-. The relevant observations made by the ld. CIT(A) are extracted below: "4.1.8 Assessee has claimed that she is running a beauty parlour business and appears to have maintained accounts on cash system of accounting and therefore, cash receipts and payments reflected in the bank account/s and cash receipts and payments not reflected in the bank account/s will form the basis of the determination of assessee's correct income. It appears from the analysis of the debits to the P&L Account, Capital Account and other payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicated by !TAT, Mumbai in its order dated 20/10/2010 and therefore, these issues stand settled and cannot be adjudicated in this appeal. Assessee has also raised issues at item numbers (a) to (n) of paragraph marked "Contention of the assessee" and the main substantive issues are discussed in the following paragraphs: 4.1.10 Issues regarding CIT(A) invoking section 69 instead of section 68 and issue of notice on 11/09/2007 by the Assessing Officer for the original assessment made vide order dated 14/11/2007 stand settled by the order of the ITAT, Mumbai dated 20/10/2010 and even otherwise these issues do not arise from the assessment order dated 14/11/2011 and therefore, these submissions are not relevant and dismissed. Assessee' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts, etc. and clearly shows that as and when assessee needed to make payments towards the cost of flat and/or towards other expenses, she decided to deposit cash in her accounts. Thus, all these submissions made by the assessee's CA are irrelevant and dismissed. 4.1.11 In this regard, deposits made in bank account of the assessee's daughter Asma A. Sarang and entries in P&L Account, Capital Account and Balance Sheet for financial year were also examined critically and it appears that assessee's daughter Asma A. Sarang has also made deposits in cash in similar fashion immediately before payments/debits in her bank account through out the year and also claimed to have carried on similar business of running a beauty parlour and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
