2021 (9) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s in the instant appeal:- 1. "The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that when the books of accounts are rejected to estimate the profit, no further addition should have been made considering the same books of accounts. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition U/s. 40(a)(ia) to the extent of Rs. 17,88,70,742/- in view of the rejections of books of accounts. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the case was selected for a limited purpose of examining share premium received and increase in unsecured loans, therefore, ought to have deleted the additions made on account of other is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sons, the order was not brought to the notice of the Managing Director / Director. However, recently a notice was issued by the Assessing Officer for the recovery of taxes for the subject assessment year, at this stage the Director of the company realized that an order has been passed by the appellate Commissioner and the same is received by one of the ex-employees of the company on 10/03/2017. Immediately, a Counsel is identified and an appeal is being filed before the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad with a delay of 344 days. The delay is resulted on account of no administrative staff at the administrative office and the person who has received the order failed to contact the Managing Director / Director of the company for appropriate act....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o dispute that the assessee had not given full details of the sub-contract receipts right from scrutiny till date. We, thus, find no reason to accept his technical as well as factual arguments regarding to books' rejection resulting in the impugned profit estimation. We accordingly decline the assessee's 7th substantive ground to this effect. 7. Now comes the latter component of section 40(a)(ia) disallowance / addition of Rs. 17,88,70,742/-. We are of the opinion that the same has no legs to stand once the assessee's books stood rejected (supra) as per hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision in Indwell Constructions vs. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 771 (AP) that no disallowance could be made once an assessee's profits are estimated at the fi....