TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 597
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,446/- on account of estimating income @ 8% on gross receipts on erroneous and insufficient grounds. 3. That the learned authority below further erred in making an addition of Rs. 1,29,74,300/- in returned income on account of cash deposits in bank on erroneous and insufficient grounds whereas the same was duly reflected in the books of accounts. 4. That in any event the order passed is illegal, un-lawful and unjustified taking into consideration the facts of the case apparent on records." (B) The assessee is proprietor of M/s. M. B. Contractor. The assessee filed return of income on 15.12.2008 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,26,207/-. The Ld. AO noticed that the gross receipts declared by the assessee were Rs. 61,00,552/- on which the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....financial statement and computation of income which was at variance with the return of income earlier filed on 15.12.2008. In the second set of financial statement and computation of income, the assessee declared turnover of Rs. 2,07,56,738/-, net profit of Rs. 4,01,093/- and total income of Rs. 3,24,303/-. The assessee also submitted a tax audit report dated 12.06.2008 whereunder turnover was declared at Rs. 2,07,56,738/- (earlier shown at Rs. 61,00,552/-) and net profit was shown at Rs. 4,01,093/- (earlier shown at Rs. 2,05,707/-). Thus the difference amounting to Rs. 1,46,56,186/- ( i.e. Rs. 2,07,56,738/- minus Rs. 61,00,552/-) was shown by the assessee as increased business turnover. The Ld. AO accepted the claim of the assessee that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents of this paper book. In particular our attention was drawn to duplicate copies of purchase invoices issued by M/s. Sharma Construction, in respect of the purchases claimed to have been made by the assessee from them. Our attention was also drawn to affidavits of the assessee and of Mr. Ramesh Sharma (proprietor M/s. Sharma Construction) ; and to the submissions made by the assessee before the lower authorities. These are part of the paper book filed by the assessee. Our attention was also drawn to the details filed before the lower authorities, which is also part of the paper book filed by the assessee. Based on materials on record and submissions made by Ld. AR of the assesee at the time of hearing ; the case of the assessee can be thu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f one Mr. Tiwari who misguided the assessee and filed the assessee's return on estimate basis without considering the relevant documents ; that the assessee had to approach Mr. Tiwari because the earlier CA of the assessee demanded a fee which was considered very high ; that audit report u/s 44AB was already prepared by CA Shri R.P. Grover but could not be considered and filed when the assessee submitted return of income ; that the difference of aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,46,56,186/- in sales figures may be due to omission of Goa sale, being the sale conducted under the supervision of the assessee's son, due to clerical mistake or may be due to ignorance of law of Mr. Tiwari or the reason best known to him . The Ld. AR of assesse emphasized ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned, perusal of paragraph 3.6 of assessment order dated 31.12.2010 shows that this addition was made by AO on protective basis while holding that M/s. Sharma Construction (proprietor : Mr. Ramesh Sharma) was the real beneficiary of cash deposited in bank account. For substantive enquiry and investigation, information was forwarded by Ld. AO of assessee to Ld. AO of M/s. Sharma Construction (proprietor : Mr. Ramesh Sharma). Ld. CIT(A), before converting this protective addition to substantive addition should have considered inquiries and investigations conducted in the case of Mr. Ramesh Sharma, proprietor of M/s. Sharma Construction. However, she based her decision on a much earlier assessment order dated 16.4.2010 (passed much earlier than....