TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 408
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sale deed itself for the same receipt was submitted before CIT(A). 2. The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts to confirm action of AO without any finding from his part and also failed to consider the fact that the creditor was trade creditor as apparent from sale deed and section 68 cannot be applied to trade creditors. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts to confirm action of AO without any finding from his part that the how appellant has failed to prove its onus and in fact it is AO who has failed to prove its onus. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts to confirm action of AO without any finding from his part that the how the appellant has failed to prove genuineness, credit worthiness and identit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hing the order when The AO failed to issue show cause for above addition and which is against the contravention of CBDT Instruction No. 20/2015, Central Board of Direct dated 29th of December, 2015 and also due to the fact that Any attempt of not affording an opportunity to the assessee would be violating principles of natural justice and any addition made in such a manner in assessment is bad in law. B) Addition of Rs. 47,42,905/- be/nq 40% of turnover for low G.P. 1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts to confirm action of AO to make the addition of Rs. 47,42,905/- being 40% of turnover on the ground of lower gross profit. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts to confirm action of AO to held that norm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd any addition made in such a manner in assessment is bad in law. 6. The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts to confirm action of AO in spite of the fact that (1) The AO has not rejected books of accounts (2) has find any defects in books of accounts (3) The account are dully audited u/s. 44AB. 7. The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts to pass the order without considering all the material in spite of stated in the order itself. 3. Brief facts of the case as made out by the Assessing Officer is as under:- "Return of income for the year under consideration was e-filed on 24.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently the assessee filed revised return on 28.05.2014 declaring total loss of Rs. 7,23....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....showing some receipts against sale of plots, including the above. It appears that after getting the query in regard to sources of cash deposit in bank, the assessee somehow managed to show the receipts against sale of plots. The use of word Relatives against plot no. 13 Babulal Jain also proves that the said party did not have cash balance at his own. For any cash credit transactions the onus was on the assessee to prove the identity & creditworthiness of party and genuineness of transactions in which the assessee grossly failed. Hence, the entire amount of Rs. 38,850/- received from Babulal Jain-Relatives was considered for addition as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act in hands of assessee. Accordingly, the addition comes to Rs. 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he project cost escalation by the assessee cannot be ruled out. Also the assessee has grossly failed in its onus to submit complete details to prove the genuineness of expenses claimed. In these circumstances there was no other alternative but to make the addition on ad hoc basis. On a conservative basis, the AO estimated a reasonable gross profit having earned by assessee @ 50% on sales. Such gross profit @50% on sales of Rs. 2,05,07,778/- comes to Rs. 1,02,53,889/- against which the assessee had already shown gross profit at Rs. 43,25,253/-. Hence, the balance amount of Rs. 1,02,53,889/-43,25,253 = 59,28,636/- was added to the total income of the assessee." 4. Upon assessee appeal learned CIT(A) confirmed the same holding as under:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed with the Assessing Officer and also the aspect of non rejection of the books of account of the appellant and thus, the addition of ad-hoc disallowance being unwarranted by law; I find that there is merit in the argument of the appellant' however, the case of the Assessing Officer cannot be rejected in its entirety in as much as the appellant has not been able to substantiate in detail the nature of expenses which have been incurred on development of the project and having not done so and considering all the facts of the case in mind I direct 40% of addition as regards gross profit be made and direct balance 10% to be deleted. As a result, the ground of appeal nos. 6 to is partly allowed." 5. Against the above order assessee is....