TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see. What has to be seen is whether substantive additions in the hands of the assessee is just and reasonable in the overall facts and circumstances of the case. Further, double taxation of same amount is against basic tenets of taxation. Moreover, neither the Ld. AO nor Ld. CIT(A) have ,in their respective orders adequately dealt with or specifically rejected the facts (summarized in paragraph 3.2 of this order) claimed by the appellant in the proceedings before lower authorities. On cumulative consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the case to the file of Ld. AO for denovo assessment. The Ld. AO in the proceedings for denovo assessment will be free to make any inquiries and investigations. Also, the assessee will be free to furnish any evidences and explanations. - ITA No. 1607/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 30-8-2016 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADI N. MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri K. Sampath, Adv. For The Respondent : Shri U.C. Dubey, Sr. DR ORDER Per ANADI N. MISHRA, Accountant Member (A) This appeal has been filed by assessee against order date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uce statement of affairs and explain the source of cash deposits totaling ₹ 1,29,74,300/- alongwith documentary evidence. On 13.12.2010 the assessee filed a different set of financial statement and computation of income which was at variance with the return of income earlier filed on 15.12.2008. In the second set of financial statement and computation of income, the assessee declared turnover of ₹ 2,07,56,738/-, net profit of ₹ 4,01,093/- and total income of ₹ 3,24,303/-. The assessee also submitted a tax audit report dated 12.06.2008 whereunder turnover was declared at ₹ 2,07,56,738/- (earlier shown at ₹ 61,00,552/-) and net profit was shown at ₹ 4,01,093/- (earlier shown at ₹ 2,05,707/-). Thus the difference amounting to ₹ 1,46,56,186/- ( i.e. ₹ 2,07,56,738/- minus ₹ 61,00,552/-) was shown by the assessee as increased business turnover. The Ld. AO accepted the claim of the assessee that the aforesaid amount of ₹ 1,46,56,186/-. and the Ld. AO further accepted the claim of the assessee regarding amended figure of business turnover of ₹ 2,07,56,738/- as against the amount of ₹ 61,00,552/- initially s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sale proceeds were received by the assessee from the customers not in Goa in Delhi ; that cartage on goods sold by assessee were paid by the purchasing customers ; that octroi was not paid and sales tax / VAT was also not paid in respect of sales claimed to have been made by the assessee because sales were made in Goa itself where VAT is not applicable and octroi was also not applicable ; that three persons were engaged at Goa for looking after sales, purchase and other related jobs ; that cash arising from sales in Goa was either received by the assesee in Delhi, or was brought to Delhi from Goa and as per requirement the same was deposited in bank account in Delhi ; that the business was carried out from business premises of M/s. Sharma Construction for which the assessee was not paying any charges except security charges to security persons ; that no transportation charges were incurred on account of goods purchased / sold because of same location / premises and on account of transportation charges being met by the purchasers ; that figures of turnover and profit of business were wrongly reported in the return of income on the advice of one Mr. Tiwari who misguided the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on (proprietor : Mr. Ramesh Sharma) was the real beneficiary of cash deposited in bank account. For substantive enquiry and investigation, information was forwarded by Ld. AO of assessee to Ld. AO of M/s. Sharma Construction (proprietor : Mr. Ramesh Sharma). Ld. CIT(A), before converting this protective addition to substantive addition should have considered inquiries and investigations conducted in the case of Mr. Ramesh Sharma, proprietor of M/s. Sharma Construction. However, she based her decision on a much earlier assessment order dated 16.4.2010 (passed much earlier than assessment order dated 31.12.2010 of the appellant assesee) which could not have taken the information forwarded by the Ld. AO of the appellant assessee, into consideration. Ld. CIT(A) converted protective addition of ₹ 1,29,74,300/- into substantive addition merely because in the aforesaid earlier order dated 16.4.2010 the addition of ₹ 1,29,74,300/- was not made in the case of Mr. Ramesh Sharma proprietor of M/s. Sharma proprietor of M/s. Sharma Construction. Moreover, neither the Ld. AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) have taken care to ascertain the extent to which cash deposits in bank account, totaling &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
