9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to A.Y. 2011-12. All the three matters were heard together as the facts and issues involved in these appeals were identical and are being disposed of vide this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. We will take the ITA No.16/Ahd/2025 for the A.Y. 2011-12 as the lead case. ITA No.16/Ahd/2025 for the A.Y. 2011-12 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file his return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12. An information was received by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had sold immovable property, in which he was one third co-owner, for a consideration of Rs. 91,00,000/-. The assessee had also deposited cash of Rs. 57,85,000/- in his Bank account maintained with Royal Bank of Scotland. On the basis of these in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). Delhi has grossly erred in law and in facts in not providing opportunity of being heard, post obtaining the remand report from the Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have provided the copy of the remand report to the appellant for his comments and thus, the order is prayed to be set-aside. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has grossly erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in the addition of an amount of Rs. 30.34,694/- being the difference between the declared sale consideration and the value assessable for the levy of stamp duty of the immovable property above mentioned without being referring the matter to the Ld. DVO for the purpose of v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es filed by the assessee in respect of other additions was duly admitted and taken into cognisance. The Ld. AR submitted that action of the CIT(A) in rejecting the request of the assessee for referring the matter to the DVO was not correct and, therefore, the addition as made by the Assessing Officer under Section 50C of the Act should be deleted. 7.1 Per contra, Shri BP Srivastava, Ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A). 7.2 We have considered the rival submissions. There is no dispute to the fact that no compliance was made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. However, before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee had made compliance and furnished additional evidences as well. On the basis of the addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer for determining the Fair Market Value of the property and, thereafter, re-work the disallowance under Section 50C of the Act on the basis of his report. The ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 8. Ground no.3 pertains to applying profit percentage on the cash deposits in the bank account. In the Assessment Order, the Assessing Officer had treated the entire cash deposit of R.57,85,000/- as income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer in his remand report had informed the Ld. CIT(A) that the original assessment order under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act dated 10.12.2008 was set aside by the Ld. PCIT vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that no books of account were produced in support of profit arrived @ 2.5% of the turnover, the income as estimated by the Ld. CIT(A) @ 3% of the cash deposits was reasonable. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Therefore, the ground taken by the assessee is dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. ITA No.15/Ahd/2025 for A.Y. 2011-12 10. The only ground taken by the assessee in this appeal is regarding estimation of income at the rate of 3% instead of 2.5% in respect of cash deposits. This issue is squarely covered by our decision in ITA No.16/Ahd/2025 for A.Y. 2011-12 and, therefore, the ground of the assessee is dismissed. 11. In the result, this appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. CIT(A). 13.1 Shri Hemant Suthar, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in confirming the addition for the entire cash deposits as income of the assessee without taking into account the cash withdrawals. He submitted that the income out of cash deposits in the bank account should be estimated by applying net profit rate of 2.5%, as done in the A.Y. 2011-12. 13.2 Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR supported the order of the lower authorities. 13.3 We have considered the rival submissions. Identical fact of cash deposits in the bank account was involved in A.Y. 2011-12 wherein the Revenue had estimated the income by applying net profit rate of 3%. Considering this fact, we do not find any reason to treat the entire cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
