TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 295
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore us the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: "1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts while confirming the jurisdiction u/s.147. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as facts while confirming applicability under section 44AD for receipts on account of truck plying business. 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition of Rs.7,57.428/- made by the A.O u/s.44AD of the I.T Act, 1961. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the issuance of notice u/s.148 of the I.T Act, 1961. 5. That the assessee craves leave to add, alter and amend modify, substit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at an amount aggregating to Rs.1,66,35,355/- was deposited by him during the year under consideration in his books of accounts viz. (i) deposit in HDFC bank account : Rs.1,56,65,623/-; (ii) deposit in Punjab & Sind Bank ; Rs.9,69,732/-. Observing, that the total transportation receipts of the assessee amounted to Rs.1,66,35,355/-, the A.O called upon the assessee to explain that having not maintained any books of accounts why its income may not be estimated by adopting a net profit rate of 8%. In reply, it was claimed by the assessee that as he had opted for disclosing of his income as per the deeming provisions of section 44AE/44AD of the Act, therefore, the income disclosed was in accordance with the mandate of law. However, the A.O was n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'AR') for the assessee assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O u/s.147 of the Act. Elaborating on his aforesaid contention, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the very basis for assumption of jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act was based on misconceived and incorrect facts. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that though the assessee had filed his original return of income for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2012-13 on 31.03.2013, therein disclosing an income of Rs.5,04,500/-, however, the A.O had initiated the impugned reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3. The source of income is contractorship. Letter dated 23.08.2013 was issued and served on the assessee, intimating the transaction and calling for details of return filed for the relevant assessment year. In response to the notice, neither any body attended nor any written reply was filed. The nature of transaction of Rs.2,00,000/- and source of purchased of immovable property valued at Rs.30,00,000/- & the source of deposit in the Banking company, remains unexplained. Assessee has also not filed return for the relevant assessment year. Hence, I have: therefore reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the A.Y 2012-13 as per explanation 2(a) of section 147 of the IT Act. Issue notice u/s.....