TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1291
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....61 [in brevity the Act], in respect of Assessment Year 2008-09. The impugned order was generated from the order of the Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Batala [in brevity the A.O.] passed u/s 143(3)/148 of the Income Tax Act, dated 31.03.2016. 2. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. That the additions/ disallowances made by the Assessing Officer ("AO") and upheld by the CIT(A) are illegal and bad in law. 2. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 2,97,65,273/- as expenditure out of undisclosed sources. 3. The addition made by the AO is illegal, bad in law and against th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial on record and in any case they are excessive. 10. That the explanation given and the evidence produced, material placed and available on record has not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and the additions made cannot be justified in view of the said material and explanation. 11. That the AO erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s 234B of the IT Act. The AO has failed to appreciate the evidence and documents placed on record by the assessee. 12. That the AO erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in initiating penalty u/s 271(l)(c) , 27IB and 271A without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. The above objections are without prejudice to each ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount to Rs. 25,79,058/- for the same period. In respect of purchase the Ld. AO also calculated the profit u/s 44AF @ of 5% on gross receipt amount to Rs.16,17,216/-. The assessee declared total income of Rs. 1,22,350/- in the return income filed u/s 139(1). The Ld. AO added back the purchase from M/s Shivam Communications amount to Rs.2,97,65,273/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act for purchase made through cash payment and also the net profit of Rs.14,88,263/- @ of 5% of Rs.2,97,65,273/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before us. 5. The Ld. counsel of the assessee vehemently argued and placed an additional ground before the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sence of notice cannot be held to be curable under Section 292 BB of the Act." 6. The Ld. DR vehemently argued but during the argument did not able to throw any light related to validity of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act related for assessment u/s 147/143(3) of the Act. 7. The Ld. counsel further argued that this additional ground was never taken before the ld. Assessing Authority or before the ld. CIT(A). The issue is taken first time before the ITAT. The Ld. counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC 229 ITR 383 (SC) for placing of additional evidence. 8. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available in the record. This additional ground is first time taken by the assessee be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....you as a token of payment made. These cheques are of HDFC Bank. I am showing you their receipts whether these cheques pertain to you. Please comments. Ans. During the F.Y. 2007-08, I was not having any account with HDFC Bank. Therefore, I have not issued any cheque to M/s Shivam Communication during F.Y. 2007- 08." 11. The Ld. counsel further mentioned that the Ld. AO did not make any verification of the HDFC Bank. Before the investigation enquiry, in fact, no such enquiry was made till the finalization of the assessment order. Further mentioned in the financial year 2011-12 M/s Shivam Communication had forged one cheque issued by the assessee. The complaint was filed by M/s Shivam Communication against the assessee U/s 138 of N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee has not recorded the purchase from Shivam Communication in his books of accounts. The assessee and M/s Shivam Communication are in dispute and in the order of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Batala it is clear that the assessee has had business relations with the Shivam Communications from the Year 2007(refer page 5 of the order). Now, the Assessee has denied any such dealings. The same clearly depicts that the assessee was having business transactions with M/s Shivam Communications and the assessee has used his unaccounted money in the business transaction. The conduct of the assessee cannot be held to be bonafide and genuine. The judgments relied upon by the counsel of the appellant are about the cases where the assessee has acted i....