TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 148 of the Act, the assessee opted that the said earlier return filed in February 2011 should be taken as it is. The reopening was done with the prior approval and proper satisfaction and the legal viable reasons. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act itself is bad in law and is not sustainable. Quantification of the actual G.P - Quantification before the AO given by the assessee as well as the calculations done by the Assessing officer both seems to be unclear and the basis of G.P. has to be taken into account. No past historical figures were produced before us. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of Assessing Officer for proper adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 11,23,617/- being G.P. @ 9.5% on a sum of ₹ 1,44,36,717/- 5.0 Without prejudice to the above Ground No. 4.0, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in law and on facts in confirming G.P. addition after applying G.P. @ 9.5% on a sum of ₹ 7,39,767/- being cash deposit in Bank Account and on ₹ 88,519/- a sum being not specified in the assessment order. 6.0 The appellant may be allowed to add, amend, alter or raise additional grounds of appeal 3. The assessee is the proprietor of M/s. R.K. Traders. As per the AIR information available with the Office of the Assessing Officer the assessee has made cash deposits of ₹ 13,27,954/- in saving bank account of Axis Bank Ltd. To ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rein that return filed on 23.02.2011 should be treated as return filed in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act. Copy of the reasons recorded prior to issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act was also provided to the assessee on 16.05.2016. Notice under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with the detailed questionnaire was issued to the assessee on 15.05.2016 seeking compliance on or before 25.05.2016. The Ld. AR of the assessee furnished the requisite details such as cash book, bank account statements and other document before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 11,23,617/-. In respect of estimation of income (GP addition), the Assessing Officer also made addition of ₹ 19,456/- i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the transactions. In fact, in respect of notice under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee opted that the said earlier return filed in February 2011 should be taken as it is. The reopening was done with the prior approval and proper satisfaction and the legal viable reasons. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act itself is bad in law and is not sustainable. Therefore, ground nos. 2 3 are dismissed. 9. As regards merits of the case, the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) was not right in confirming the addition of ₹ 11,23,617/- being G.P. @ 9.5% on a sum of ₹ 1,44,36,717/-. The Ld. AR has also taken without prejudice ground thereby stating that the CIT(A) erred in co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
