TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 1194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stead of the Financial Year. 3. The C.I.T.(Appeals) failed to appreciate that in completed assessment of Asst. Year 1983-84 the assessee was taxed on financial year basis. 4 The C.I.T.(Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer himself has conceded before his predecessor in office at the lime of first appeal that the assessment which was set aside was an over-pitched assessment. 5. The C.1,T.(Appeals) erred in upholding the estimation of cash receipts from cellar and ground floor at ₹ 11,60,658/- and ₹ 30,76,009/-respectively and the cheque receipt at ₹ 7,34,918/- and ₹ 20,78,916/- respectively. 6. The C.I.T.(Appeals) erred in upholding the decision of the Assessing Officer whereby he applied th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me from construction business. Asst. Year 1987-88 1. The C.I.T.(Appeals) erred in holding that section 147-148 notice and assessment were valid in law. 2. The CT.T.(Appeals} erred in upholding that the Assessing Officer was justified in law in resorting to section 154 while making assessment. 3. The C.LT.(Appeals) erred in upholding the receipt of estimated sale consideration of ₹ 35 lakhs for first to fourth floor against the agreement of sale for ₹ 14 lakhs for the entire project and Rs,8,25,000/- of actual receipt on sale of the project on as is where is basis. 4. The CJ.T.(Appeals) erred in upholding the estimate of alleged receipt of on-money in respect of first to fourth floors on the basis of the alleged receipt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The C.IT.(Appeals) erred in upholding the decision of the Assessing Officer of charging 215 interest of ₹ 3,89,775/- in spite of the fact that there was no mention thereof in the assessment order. 13. The C.I.T.(Appeals) ought to have held that 147 action and order were without jurisdiction and if the original assessment was an over-pitched assessment even according to the Assessing Officer who appeared before the then C.I.T.(Appeals), this was more so. 2. During the course of hearing ld. AR submitted that he does not press grounds relating to reopening of assessment and grounds relating to charging of interest etc. except the working of profit on cash portion. For Asst. Year 1985-86 3. The facts of the case are that a search and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ire sum of ₹ 42,36,667/- being on money received in cash. 4. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that assessee is liable to be taxed for entire sum received in cash. According to him all the expenses are accounted for in the books of account of the firm. According to ld. CIT(A), assessee has not maintained books of account upto date and margin of profit is very high in case of cash. Further, the claim of the assessee that for getting vacant possession of the premises it paid a sum ₹ 32 lacs is not proved. 5. In Asst. Year 1987-88 the AO found that 'on'money' received in cash amounted to ₹ 21 lacs and that in cheque ₹ 14 lacs. In that year also the AO applied net profit rate of 10% on cheque ....