9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 054065249(1) 30/ 6/ 2023 2020-21 All these orders are arisen out of the orders passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. Since the assessee has raised identical grounds in all these appeals involving the similar issues, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed of in this consolidated order. 2. At the outset, we noticed that there is a delay of 58 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. With respect to belated filing of the appeals, the assessee filed petitions for condonation of delay along with the affidavits in all the appeals under consideration and the relevant portion of the affidavits which is identical is extracted herein below for reference: "A. The appellant is unaware about the receipt of order since no SMS message has been received to his mobile stating that the appellate order has been uploaded. B. Later on, our Authorized Representative has obtained the appeal order in the month of September and advised us about necessity of filing of further appeal . C. As the September month is the last date for filing the returns of income, we along with our finance team were engaged in finalizing the accounts of the group. In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in huge cash transactions with M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram and the details of which are not recorded in his regular books of account. It was further observed from the unaccounted cash book maintained by M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram, Mr. Polisetty Sham Sundar was received Rs. 23,72,49,340/- from M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram outside his books over the period from AY 2012-13 to 2019-20. However, it was also observed by the Revenue that the assessee has not admitted any of the above receipts in the return of income filed in response to the notice u/s. 153A of the Act. Hence, a notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 17/03/2022. Further, notice u/s. 142(1) was also issued on 3/2/2022 and the assessee was asked to furnish the details. Since there was no response from the assessee, the Ld. AO issued another notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 18/2/2022 requesting the assessee to explain as to why the unaccounted transactions done by Sri Polisetty Shyam Sundar with M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram were not admitted as additional income by Sri Shyam Sundar in his return filed u/s. 153A of the Act. In reply vide letter dated 27/03/2022, the assessee stated that the unaccounted cash receipts by Sri Polisetty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nditure in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in both law and facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in the addition of Rs. 45,02,702/- made towards withdrawals from M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram treating it as income in the hands of the assessee is against the law and liable to be deleted. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of 20% of the withdrawals as there is no substantive addition in the hands of firm M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram and there is no dispute with regard to the receipts. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 20% of the withdrawals as the amount is withdrawn after admitting the income. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of 20% of withdrawals based on the seized annexure A/PSS/CORP/18 which was not valid evidence as finding was given by Hon'ble ITAT, Visakhapatnam in the case of M/s. Pol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und Nos. 5 and 6 raised by the assessee on merits and they are extracted herein below: "5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing deduction of expenditure towards purchases of tobacco as reflected in the seized material to the extent of 80% of such expenditure only instead of allowing the entire expenditure though the sales admitted in the books could not have been made without effecting such purchases and though the said sales have not been disputed by the Revenue. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing deduction towards the expenditure represented by the debit entries without narration in the seized material to the extent of 40% of such expenditure only without providing any justified for limiting the deduction to the said extent instead of allowing the entire expenditure any by disregarding the provisions of section 132(4A) that deem that the contents of the seized material are true." 53. On the above grounds, the Ld. AR argued that the assessee has purchased tobacco from grey market by cash which was already included in the purchases while admitting the gross profit dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
