TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 710
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1.The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, erred in passing the order u/s 144 without exercising best judgment and completely ignoring the submissions made by the appellant before the CIT(Appeals), Valsad vide the letter dated 29th January, 2019. 2.Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in confirming the order of AO passed u/s 144 made without application of best of his judgment as required u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the cash withdrawals and cheque payments and restricted the addition to a reasonable profit of 8% as laid down u/s 44AD of the Act. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ws that NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) passed impugned order on26.11.2021, however, present appeal was filed by assessee before Tribunal on 20.09.2022, the registry has calculated delay of 42 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The assessee has filed his affidavit for condoning such delay. The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee submits that the order of NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) was not received by assessee and the assessee was not aware about passing of said impugned order though the assessee has given e-mail portal in Form-35 (Appeal Form before Ld. CIT(A)) of his ex-employer, if any, about sending order was not communicated to assessee's e-mail portal. The assessee received demand notice on 01.06.2022 as well as penalty notice of 10.06.202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y on receipt of tax demand notice and thereafter, filed present appeal. Considering the fact that when technical consideration and cause of substantial justice are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice should be prevail. Thus, considering the facts of delay in filing of assessee's appeal is condoned. Now adverting the merit of the case. 5. Brief facts of the case that assessee's case was re-opened for assessment year 2010-11 by recording reasons that as per details in ITS data, the assessee has received contractual receipt of Rs.8,95,080/- from Paras Pumps Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer further recorded that no return of income was filed by assessee for assessment year under consideration. On the basis of information....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee has not filed his return of income and notice under section 148 was issued on 31.03.2017. The addition was made by Assessing Officer for the want of compliance and entire contractual receipts was added to the income of the assessee, which is once again added to the total income of assessee. 8. The NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee noted that claim of assessee that he has filed his return manually for assessment year 2010-11, but the assessee failed to provide copy of such return with acknowledgement. The assessee failed to discharge onus by producing cogent evidence and explanation thereto. The NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) further held that assessee failed to produce books of account, audit report and invoice with doc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....On merit, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits it is settled law that entire contractual receipt cannot be treated as income and only income component on presuming net profit @ 8% as prescribed in under section 44AD would be taken as an estimation of income. To support her submission, Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon following case law: * Nishikant T Patne vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3 [2013] 36 taxmann.com 540 (Pune-Trib.)/[2013] 60 SOT 146 (Pune-Trib.)[15-07- 2013] * Commissioner of Income-tax-XII vs. Subodh Gupta [2015] 54 taxmann.com 343 (Delhi)/[2015] 229 Taxman 367 (Del)[09-12-2014] * Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)* [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bom)/[2016] 240 T....