TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. 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. No dispute with regard to the fact that the AO taxed the entire difference of receipts - undisputedly, there is no finding by the AO or any material placed on record, suggesting that the assessee had made investment out of undisclosed source for earning of gross receipts. AO simply added the difference of receipts as recorded in Form 26AS and as disclosed by the assessee firm in its P L A/c. This action of the Assessing Officer is contrary to the settled principle of law. Therefore, such action could not be sustained. AO ought to have taxed the only profit element e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of ₹ 5393868/-. iv) Not accepting that Harjot Singh Anand had in his individual capacity disclosed a sum of ₹ 827483/- and ₹ 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/s 133(6) have given the name o the Account as M/s. ABG Hospitality Services and also issued cheques in the name of M/s. ABG Hospitality Services but wrongly mentioned the PAN No. of Appellant Firm. vi) Not allowing the admission of the Additional Grounds of Appeals: - 1. That without prejudice to other Gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Since, there was a difference of ₹ 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 declared by the assessee. It was also recorded by the Assessing Officer that the deductors of tax have confirmed the payment made to the assessee and corresponding deduction of tax. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer rejected the contention that the partner of the assessee Shri H.S. Anan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 in such receipt could be subjected to tax. He submitted that the law is well settled in this regard that the gross receipts cannot be treated as net receipt. He contended that profit at notional rate i.e. @ 8% on the gross receipt ought to have been computed, without p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention, 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 assessee had made investment out of undisclosed source for earning of gross receipts. The Assessing Officer simply added the difference of receipts as recorded in Form 26AS and as disclosed by the assessee firm in its P L A/c. This action of the Assessing Officer is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
