TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e deserves to be given one last opportunity to present his case before the Ld. AO. We, therefore, remit the above two issues involved in this appeal to the file of the Ld. AO for framing the assessment afresh in the light of the details/information/documents already on record and which he may require the assessee to furnish during the course of fresh assessment proceedings before him. Undisclosed profit on suppressed turnover - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has recomputed the amount of suppressed turnover and net profit rate to be applied thereon based on the audited balance sheet and accordingly granted part relief of ₹ 1,90,360/- to the assessee. We do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see filed his original return of income on 19.7.2010 declaring income of ₹ 3,78,720/- after claiming TDS amounting to ₹ 84,215. Based on Form 26AS, the Ld. AO recorded the finding that the total sales of the assessee during the assessment year 2010-11 amounted to ₹ 1,51,93,818/- towards which TDS of ₹ 1,61,481/- was claimed by the assessee. Accordingly the Ld. AO treated this differential amount as the income of the assessee which had escaped assessment and initiated proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act ). In response to letter dated 12.5.2016, the assessee stated that the original return filed by the assessee on 27.3.2011 declaring total income of ₹ 5,99,112/- be treated as r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8/- on account of increase in the capital of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the Ld. AO made this addition for the reason that the assessee in his original return of income which was also treated as return of income in response to notice under section 148 of the Act showed the proprietary capital at ₹ 13,60,104/- whereas in the balance sheet filed during the assessment proceedings, the capital was shown at ₹ 21,64,002/. Hence, the difference of ₹ 7,03,898/- was added to the income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) stated that before him, the assessee merely produced a calculation justifying the total capital at ₹ 21,64,002/- and failed to produce any evidence thereof. Also, the assessee could not furnish any cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .51%) instead of ₹ 3,45,777/- thereby granting a relief of ₹ 1,90,360/- to the assessee. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before us. The Ld. AR at the very outset submitted that assessee may be granted an opportunity to produce the details/documents before the Ld. AO which are alleged to be not produced leading to the confirmation of the impugned additions by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR had no objection. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the Ld. Representatives of the parties, perused the facts/material on record and the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). 8.1. In respect of Ground 1 relating to the grievance of the assessee about completion of assessment under section 144, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
