2024 (9) TMI 478

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....') relating to the Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of land trading. For the Asst. Year 2019- 20, Assessee filed his Return of Income on 30-09-2019 declaring total income of Rs. 23,49,930/- wherein salary income of Rs. 25,34,930/, Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 11,46,723/- and Other Sources of Rs. 19,542/-. The assessee claimed losses of current year of Rs. 11,66,265/- and claiming the refund of Rs. 20,58,130/-. During scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer made additions u/s. 68 of Rs. 15,65,167/- and cash deposit of Rs. 93,14,000/- and unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 70,74,034/- and demanded tax thereon. 3. On verification of the assessment record, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is no escapement of income to the extent of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- and requested to drop the Revision proceedings. 3.2 However the Ld. PCIT held that the Assessing Officer has not made proper verification of the above details at the time of framing of assessment, which is an erroneous order and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Further the claim of the assessee that one of the land of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- in Form 26AS does not pertain to him but pertains to "Vaibhav Corporation Pvt. Ltd." requires further verification at the end of the AO but he failed to make correct addition u/s. 68 of the Act and failed to consider the cash deposit thereby under assessment of income by Rs. 83,82,600/-. Thus the Ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the bank account u/s 68 r ws 115BBE while computing tax on total income made addition of only Rs. 9,31,400/- 6. Ld. Pr. CIT erred in law and on facts directing AO to compute tax on total income of Rs. 4,28,43,240/- in place of Rs. 3,44,60,640/- by adding only 10% of cash deposit in the bank is a rectifiable mistake not for revising the order. 7. Ld. Pr. CIT erred in law and on facts holding the order erroneous on the alleged ground of AO not conducting proper inquiry into sale value of property as reflected in 26AS but not belonging to the appellant is against principles of natural justice. 5. Ld. Senior Counsel Shri S.N. Soparkar appearing for the assessee drawn our attention to the reply filed by the assessee before Ld. PCIT as well ....