TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 549
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ys in filing the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limited. In this regard, the Ld. AR brought our attention to the condonation petition filed by the assessee and read out the contents thereof which are as under: ".......... 2. The appellant did not receive the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and hence was not aware of the order. The appellant did not receive even the consequential order or any other notices from the Assessing Officer for payment of the demand. The appellant did not even know that his bank accounts bearing account no.166885 held with HDFC bank account No.68600 held with ICICI bank were attached by the Income Tax Department on 29/02/2019 for recovery of the demand as these bank accounts were not operated at t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lay, explaining the reasons for such delay, we are of the considered opinion, the reasons advanced by the assessee are not appreciable. When an appeal filed by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the onus is on the assessee to pursue the appeal and to know the outcome of the appeal so as to take further steps on the decision of the FAA to avoid any coercive action from the Department's side. It is also a settled principle that each case of the delay it has to be examined on its individual merits and jurisprudence does not extend to accommodating and condoning all inordinate delays. 4. However, in the present case, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order on 09/08/2016 and was not received by the assessee and the assessee wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....business is at Rs. 2,21,42,500/- and the assessee has offered an amount of Rs. 3,80,132/- as his net profit from liquor business ie., NP @ 1.72% which is very low in this line of business. Later on the case was selected for manual scrutiny and accordingly statutory notices U/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee calling for certain information. In response the assessee's representative appeared and made submissions. On perusal and verification of the information submitted by the assessee's Representative adhering the notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act along with a questionnaire, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee made total purchases at Rs. 1,64,43,051/- during the year and paid an amount of Rs. 53,35,450/- towards licen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of account. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in direct the AO to estimate the net profit @ 10% of purchases as against net profit of 5% on the stock put to sale. 4. (a) The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 17,78,483/- made by the AO towards alleged unexplained license fee paid. (b) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have given sufficient opportunity to explain the investment. (c) Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have granted benefit of teles....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt of Delhi in the case of Kamal Jewellers vs. ITO, dated 22/5/1995. 3. Decision of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Five Vision vs. ACIT dated 22/7/2016. 4. Decision of the ITAT, Cochin in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs. DCIT (TDS) CPC, Ghaziabad, dated 22/7/2016. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials on record and the orders of the Authorities below. Admitted facts are that the assessee failed to produce any evidence in support of sales made and hence the Ld. AO rejected the books of account and estimated the income @ 20% of the stock put to sale. The reliance placed by the Ld. AR in the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Majji Naga (supra) and Tangadu Jogisetty in ....