TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1023
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sive perverse and bad in law. 2. The notice u/s.148 of the Act is bad and. illegal as the reason or reopening was that the assessee had made time deposit amounting to Rs.54,05,001/- and cash deposit of Rs. 12,95,250/- but the reason is wrong as actual time deposit was Rs. 13,93,000/-, so it shows that the reopening was done without verifying the data and only for making fishing inquiries. 3. The Notice u/s.148 is bad, illegal as the sanctioned given by the Pr. CIT-1 was of mechanical sanctioned and without following the procedures (SOP) prescribed by CBDT on dtd.10.01.2018. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax. (Appeals) has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....52,980/-which included interest of Rs.3,01,506/- under section 234B of the Act. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has not provided the ample opportunities to hear the case, hence the case may please be allowed and set aside to the CIT(A), Surat.] 9. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 10. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal. 2. Perusal of record shows that the impugned order was passed by the ld. NFAC/CIT(A) on 02/09/2021 and the assessee w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le Apex Court, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. 6. Brief facts of the case are that no return of income was filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessing Officer was having information that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 12,95,250/- in his bank account with Textile Co-Op Bank. The case of assessee was reopened with the prior approval of competent authorities. Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) dated 30/3/2018 was issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer noted that despite service of notice under Section 148, the assessee failed to file his return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12. The Assessing officer after serving statutory notices under Section 142(1) & 143(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R) for the Revenue. At the outset of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that he is not pressing grounds of appeal relating to validity of reopening. The ld. Sr. DR for revenue has no objection in not pressing the grounds relating to validity of reopening. Therefore, considering the contention of ld. AR of the assessee, grounds of appeal related to validity of reopening is dismissed as not pressed. 9. On the merit of addition, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee is a salaried person and was also doing a small business of "Lapsi" at a very small level as a retailer. The assessee filed his return under Section 44AD of the Act and offered a taxable income of Rs. 1,74,543/-. The Assessing Officer made addition of ent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s as claimed, the entire deposits in the bank account is net profit of the assessee. 12. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. I find that the during the assessment, the Assessing officer made addition of aggregate of cash as well as cheque deposit in the bank account of assessee. The ld. CIT(A), confirmed the additions by taking a view that assessee has not filed any evidence to substantiate that assessee was doing business of "Lapsi". Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that assessee was doing a business of 'Lapsi' on very small scale. The family of assessee is in this traditional business, inherited from his predecessors and that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dmitted that cash deposit pertains to his retail business but details and nature of business were not forthcoming from record, considering the total turnover of assessee, net income had to be determined under Section 44AF. Further the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Smt. Krushangi Keyur Bhagat Vs ITO (supra) almost on similar set of facts wherein cash credit of Rs. 183207/- was found credited in the bank account of that assessee, the assessee took plea before lower authorities that transaction in bank account pertained to her textile business. The assessee claimed that only peak credit appearing in the bank account should be considered which was not accepted and the amount after reducing the cheque deposits, remaining was treated as un....