TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1023
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in re-opening t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 was required to file appeal on or before 01/11/2021. However, this appeal was filed before the Tribunal on 18/11/202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me 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(2) of the Act proceeded for assessment. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee filed return of income on 23/11/2019 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting 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 entire cash deposit as well as cheque deposits. The assessee before the lower authorities has explained the source of cash as well a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ough 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 the deposits made in the bank accounts are part of sale proceed or transaction of family business of Lapsi. I find that pattern of deposits in bank account shows tha....