AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 464
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de in violation of the principles of natural justice, on the premise that the impugned order of assessment does not suffer from infirmities warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Brief facts: i) The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of trading of furniture and home appliances. ii) The appellant had filed the returns regularly by paying appropriate taxes. For the assessment year 2020-21, they filed its return of income on 19.01.2021 declaring a total income of Rs. 30,38,800/- while paying taxes to the extent of Rs. 10,41,116/-. iii) While so, there was a survey under Section 133 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") on 27.02.2020. Pursuant to the same, the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l deed (if any). 6. Please furnish complete family tree of the partners of the firm, with name, age, occupation and assessment details. 7. Please furnish details of house properties owned by your firm. 8. Please furnish the details of unsecured loans, with name and present communication address of the creditors, PAN, date and mode of receipt of the loan, interest payable and purpose of the loan. 9. Please furnish copies of statement of all bank accounts of the firm of the Financial Year 2019-20. Also, please give details of the Bank accounts including F.D. And credit cards in the following format: Name and address of the bank with branch Account No. and type of account Interest received / accrued....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvey proceedings, it was alleged that there was an excess stock to the extent of Rs. 3,86,63,654/-. In response, the appellant recalculated the value of the excess stock found during survey by adopting the profit percentage to be 30% and reducing the same from the stock value taken at the time of survey to arrive at the purchase value. Though, the appellant had offered profit only at the rate of 14.19% at the time of survey, they were called upon to explain the above difference in the profit margin. viii) The appellant submitted its reply vide letter dated 05.08.2022, in response thereto, along with documentary evidence. xi) Thereafter, the Respondent issued another notice dated 16.08.2022 wherein the appellant was called ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le to be treated as unexplained investment, while adding the same to the total income invoking Section 69 of the Act and the notice dated 16.08.2022, wherein the stock value was reworked and the appellant was called upon to explain the difference of Rs. 29,36,013/-. The relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder: Show Cause Notice dated 02.08.2022: A show cause notice in the above case has been issued to the assessee on 16.03.2022. The assessee has furnished reply in response to the above. In continuation to the above notice, the assessee is requested to provide further details as under: 1. During the course of the survey proceedings, there is an excess stock found to the tune of Rs. 3,86,63,654/-. However, dur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the value arrived at the time of survey Rs. 3,86,63,654/-. However, the assessee has not produced evidence for arriving at the stock value of Rs. 2,74,76,439/-, in entirely. Considering the above facts, the stock value is reworked on the basis of GP rate @ 14.19% offered by the assessee himself, which is tabulated as under: Descriptions Amount (in Rs. ) Amount (in Rs. ) Entire stock valued at MRP 3,86,63,654 Less Margin at 14.19% 54,84,373 Net Stock Value arrived 3,31,79,231 2. Further the assessee had submitted the details explaining the source of the above stock which is tabulated as under: Descriptions Amount (in Rs. ) A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udge had failed to see that the challenge to the impugned order of assessment was on the ground that the same was made in violation of the principles of natural justice and thus, falls within the exceptions carved out to the rule of alternate remedy. 5. To the contrary, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondent that the order of the learned Judge does not warrant interference inasmuch as the appellant has an effective alternative remedy. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. We find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the proceedings leading up to the passing of the impugned order lacks clarity and has resulted in the appellant being led to believe that their response/ ex....