2016 (4) TMI 574

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... u/s 133A of I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the totality of the facts placed before him. (ii) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the finding recorded by the AO that assessee has made unexplained purchases of Rs. 17,764/- and thereby sustaining addition of said amount of Rs. 17,764/- made u/s 69C of the I.T. Act. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a retailer carrying business of purchase and sale of Utensils under the name and style of M/s. Gaurav Jain Steel Centre. The returns of income were not being by the assessee in regular course. Survey operation u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on the assessee's premises on 13-02-2008. During the course thereof, various loose papers, purchase and sale bills fro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d u/s 133A. The AO thus completed statement at an income of Rs. 4,50,240/- 2.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed assessee's appeal confirming the order of the AO. 2.3 Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal wherein the ld. AR of the assessee contends that after survey and during reassessment proceedings the assessee had prepared books of account which are accepted by the AO. However, the AO added book income as well as surrendered income. The ld. AR of the assessee further contends that the AO in assessment order for 2003-04 and 2004-05 made addition of Rs. 3.00 lacs on the basis of statement of survey without giving any deduction for income surrendered by assessee in return while in A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d order of the ld. CIT(A) is dated 6-03-2014 whereas the order of the ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2004-05 to 2007-08 were passed subsequently on 28-05- 2014 due to change of incumbent. The assessee wantonly did not produce the earlier order for the assessment year 2003-04 passed by ld. CIT(A) before his successors in appeal proceedings for AY 2004-05 to 2007-08. Thus the facts about by the confirmation of additions by ld. CIT(A) for 2003-04 were not disclosed before the successor ld. CIT(A). Thus due to non disclosure of proper facts successor CIT(A) misdirected himself in deleting the additions. As a consequence of distorted facts now there exist two contrary appellate orders on the same set of facts and despite all the irregulariti....