TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1022X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2016 - - - Dated:- 14-9-2018 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Shri S.Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member For The Assessee : Shri K.C. Devdas For The Revenue : Smt. N. Swapna, DR ORDER Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the CIT (A)-5, Hyderabad, dated 31.08.2016. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the Hon'ble CIT(A) is erroneous in law as well as facts of the case. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have considered the facts and circumstances under which the delay occurred in filing of the appeal and ought to have condoned the delay by taking a lenient view. 3. The Hon'ble C1T(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 30.03.2013 by declaring an income of ₹ 3,99,17,910 only. Observing that the net profit declared by the assessee included the inadmissibility of statutory disallowance u/s 40 of the Act to the extent of ₹ 70,37,976/-, AO held that the assessee has admitted a net profit of ₹ 3,28,79,934/- only, leading to a difrerence of undisclosed profit of ₹ 1,08,88,001/-. When the AO pointed this out to the assessee, it was submitted that during the survey proceedings itself, it was stated that some of the payments to the extent of ₹ 46,10,000 is yet to be paid. Relevant details were submitted. Taking the same into consideration, AO arrived at the total income of ₹ 4,61,95,910 and brought it to tax. Aggrieved, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of delay and also placed reliance upon the following decisions: a) Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Data Carriers and Ayush Carrying Corporation reported in 56 Taxmann.com 214 (All.) b) ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Jt.CIT vs. Tractors Farm Equipments Ltd reported in 104 ITD 149 (Chennai). c) ITA Nos.1025 1024/Hyd/2016 dated 26.05.2017. 5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the survey was conducted u/s 133A on 24.1.2013 whereas the assessment was completed on 31.03.2015. Thus, there was almost a gap of two years. The assessee has not filed the return subsequent to the date of survey. In the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
