TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 680
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2017 under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in law while upholding the Order passed by Ld. AO in the light of the fact that the Appellant has not been served any valid notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in law while upholding the Order passed by Ld. AO, without providing to the Appellant (a) a copy of reasons recorded in writing for opening the assessment proceedings u/s 148; (b) copy of AIR Information in the possession of the Ld. AO and (c) without providing reasonable opportunities to present....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ived a sum of Rs.24,96,217/- on which TDS u/s 194C of the Act was deducted. Further, the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.6,10,000/-. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. It is recorded by the Assessing Officer ["AO"] that the assessee did not raise any objection regarding re-opening of the assessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act. Further, the assessee did not challenge the jurisdiction of the AO. It is also noted that no one attended the assessment proceedings on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the AO framed the assessment u/s 144/147 of the Act vide order dated 07.12.2017 and made addition of Rs.8,09,697/-. 4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after consideri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer, Ward 62(4) to demonstrate the service of notice(s) to the Appellant. 4. In this case, one of the additions of INR 6,10,000/- has been made on account of Cash Deposits into the bank account of the Firm. The Ld. Assessing Officer has grossly failed to note and understand that being a Construction Firm, there have been regular cash deposits as well as regular cash withdrawal during the normal course of business and that only for business purposes. 5. The statement of Cash Withdrawals and Cash Deposits was furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) during the course First Stage Appellate proceedings. This statement clearly indicates that impugned Cash Deposits of INR 6,10,000/- have been made only out of the Cash Withdrawals from the same b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion Report and Form 26AS) i.e. 8% of INR 7,13,748/- = INR 57,100/-. 10. The Ld. AO has completely failed to allow the legitimate TDS credit of INR 66,511/- to the appellant which is duly reflected in the Form- 26AS while framing his ex-parte assessment order. 11. As the main Partner of the Appellant Firm had already expired somewhere in the year 2014-2015, It is hereby respectfully submitted that that the assessee had total Gross Receipts of INR 17,82,469/- and not at all INR 24,96,217/- after giving effect to the reversal entry of INR 7,13,748/- as reflected in Form 26AS. The income of the Appellant firm may kindly be computed @ 8% of this Correct Contractual Receipts of INR 17,82,469/- comes to INR 1,42,598/- only. 12. The amoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant to the department Since the amount of Rs.24,96,217// appears in the AIR record of die department, the onus on the appellant has not been discharged by merely filing copies of bank statements. As for (ii) above, the cash deposit of Rs.6,10,000/- is also added back as per information received in AIR record. Merely filing an account statement of the cash withdrawal and deposits without any books of account cannot establish tire source of the cash deposits. Therefore, the cash deposit addition is also being sustained." 9. From the above finding of Ld.CIT(A), it is evident that the assessee had stated that the firm had deposited a sum of Rs.6,60,000/- in the bank account of the assessee however, the AO took it as Rs.6,10,000/-. S....