2019 (5) TMI 9

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0,000/- and net profit @20% was Rs. 1,68,000/- but doe to clerical mistake it appears as Rs. 96,50,000/-. Therefore, AO has taken net profit rate on Rs. 96,50,000/- which was not justified, nor it correct in view of above fact. Therefore, the AO has committed error and CIT(A) the error is against the facts and law. 2. That the assessee has right to add, modify or delete any ground during the appeal proceedings. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 24.7.2014 at Rs. 1,93,500/- Later the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "Act") was issued on 28.8.2015. Subsequently, a detailed questionnaire alongwith notice ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., vegetables etc. Receipt from agricultural produce are deposited in his bank account. Copy of bank account statement was also filed. AO on perusing the bank account observed that there are total credit of Rs. 3,44,710/- and assessee explained that these deposits are related to sale of agricultural produce. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, assessee was categorically asked to produce the counsel who has filed wrong particulars of income in ITR for verification. Assessee stated that he was not in a position to produce the said counsel as he was no residing at the address known to him. Accordingly, AO observed that assessee had declared income of Rs. 1,93,500/- out of total gross receipts of Rs. 96,50,000/- u/s. 44AD which is not ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l and no effort has been made to either produce the AR who filed the return nor any affidavit or even a confirmation of the previous AR has been filed to corroborate the error that was apparently committed by him. However, before the Ld. CIT(A) a technical ground was raised that the proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act is void since the return was declared defective. In this connection, it is observed, that no such plea was taken during the assessment proceedings in which the assessee not only participated but even his statement was recorded. It is also to be noted that the case was selected for scrutiny by CASS which is computer based selection and not manual selection of the cases for scrutiny. So, the plea of the AR that the return was ....