9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 250 erred in: i) Holding that the case of the Assessee had been validly reopened U/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ii) Not appreciating the overwhelming evidence and confirming the difference between 26AS and amount declared as undisclosed income of the Assessee. iii) Ignoring the affidavit of the Assessee and confirming an Addition of Rs. 5393868/-. iv) Not accepting that Harjot Singh Anand had in his individual capacity disclosed a sum of Rs. 827483/- and Rs. 304152/- under Income Disclosure Scheme on this turnover for the AYs. 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively and shown the Bank Account Details of M/s. ABG Hospitality Services- A/c No. 020100755001 in citizen Cooperative Bank Noida. v) Not appreciating that the parties U/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). Thereafter, it was observed that as per Form 26AS the gross receipt against the PAN of the assessee were shown at Rs. 88,66,179/-, whereas the assessee in his return declared the same at Rs. 34,72,311/-. Since, there was a difference of Rs. 53,93,868/-, the Assessing Officer reopened the case of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 06.03.2013. In response thereto, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee attended the proceedings and filed details as called for. However, the Assessing Officer was not convinced with the explanation given by the assessee in respect of difference of gross receipt as per 26AS and decla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in support was also filed. He submitted that the authorities below failed to take note of the fact that Sh. Harjot Singh Anand had in individual capacity disclosed a sum of Rs. 8,27,483/- and 3,04,152/- under the Income Disclosure Scheme for the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. The details of bank account no. 020100755001 of M/s ABG Hospitality Services was also furnished. He submitted that under the facts and circumstances of this case, the Assessing Officer erroneously made the addition purely on the basis of whims and fancies. Further, he contended that even if it is assumed that the entire receipt pertained to the assessee firm, in that event also, entire receipt could not have been taxed only profit element embedded i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in re-opening of the assessment. Regarding merit of the addition, the contention of the assessee is that the receipt pertained to one of the partners namely, Shri Harjot Singh Anand, who confirmed this fact on duly sworn affidavit. Without prejudice to other contention, it is also stated that the entire receipts as reflected in Form 26AS only profit element embedded in such receipt could be taxed. We have given out thoughtful consideration to this contention of the Authorized representative of the assessee, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Assessing Officer taxed the entire difference of receipts. Further, undisputedly, there is no finding by the Assessing Officer or any material placed on record, suggesting that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
