9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'), vide order dated 21.12.2019. 2. At the outset, it is seen that this appeal is time barred by 57 days and assessee has filed condonation petition for condonation of delay. This appeal is filed by assessee on 25.07.2022 whereas the order of the PCIT was communicated to the assessee on 30.03.2022. The appeal was to be filed on or before 29.05.2022, whereas appeal was filed only on 25.07.2022, thereby there is a delay of 57 days. The assessee in his condonation petition has stated the reason that the appeal papers were sent for signature to the office of the Chartered Accountant which was misplaced and appeal papers were traced after getting reminder from the office of the counsel on record in the middle of July ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee explained before the AO that the total turnover for the year ending 31.03.2017 stands at Rs. 11,18,07,682/- and out of this, the total cash sales amounts to Rs. 11,15,10,815/-. The assessee explained that the cash deposit is on account of sale proceeds of the business of recharge of Vodafone mobile. The assessee submitted the details of month wise cash sales and cash deposits during the period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017. The AO noted that there is a difference of Rs. 12,16,374/- and added 'income from business' of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 5. Subsequently, the PCIT on examination of assessment proceedings noted that the assessee has booked of expenditure in his books of accounts and hence, the differential cash deposit amount arrived at by the AO o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. 6. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the same arguments which were made before the PCIT. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR supported the revision order passed by the PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act and argued that the assessee's books of accounts were audited by a chartered accountant u/s. 44AB of the Act and it is established that expenditure made by assessee were duly verified and no additional expenditure can be claimed by the assessee to the extent of 92% of the differential cash deposit of Rs. 12,16,374/-. In term of the above, he supported the revision order. 7. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the AO while framing assessment has categorically no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
