TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 816
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing his revision jurisdiction. 2. The present appeal is time-barred by 5 days, a separate application for condonation of delay has been filed by the appellant. Considering the said application, the aforesaid delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that as per the information received by the Assessing Officer under 'Operation Clean Money', it reveals that the assessee had deposited a cash of Rs.15,90,580/- in his bank account during the demonetization period i.e. from 9th November 2016 to 30th December 2016. The details of the said deposited currency has been mentioned in table 1 at page 2 to 4 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 13.02.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fit @5% of the gross receipt at Rs.12,31,574/- and added the said amount into the income of the assessee as unexplained u/s 69 of the Act. Thereafter, the ld. PCIT exercising his revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on examination of assessment records observed that in this case, the Assessing Officer had calculated net profit @5% on gross receipts without any basis. That the net profit disclosed by the assessee in earlier years was @15% and 18% for assessment year 2015-16 and assessment year 2016-17 respectively. The Ld. PCIT observed that considering the earlier profits shown by the assessee, the net profit for assessment year 2017-18 even if, taken u/s 44AD could not have been less than 8% on gross receipts/turnover. The ld. PCIT re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Ld. PCIT, is legally not justified , in substituting his opinion in place of the AO, more so, when the AO has adopted a possible view accepted by law, and the substitution of the same by the opinion of the Ld. PCIT, is bad in law, and the order may please be cancelled. 5) For that the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any further grounds of appeal, before or at the time of hearing." 5. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee had stated at bar that he does not press Ground no.1 of the appeal. The ld. counsel has further stated that Ground no.2 is also not pressed being general in nature. 6. The only contention raised by the ld. counsel for the assessee/appellant is that there was no error in the assessment order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no effort to collect information or data by the Assessing Officer for estimating the net profits/income of the assessee. No enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer in this respect. 8. The ld. PCIT, however, observed that the data was available to show that in the earlier years, the assessee has returned net profit @15% and 18% in assessment year 2015-16 and assessment year 2016-17 respectively. The ld. PCIT also considered that even in the case of no accounts and presumptive income on ad hoc basis, the minimum net profit should have been determined @8% on gross receipts u/s 44AD of the Act. 9. Now, the contention of the ld. counsel that section 44AD was not applicable as the gross receipts of the assessee were more than the prescribed ....