2024 (10) TMI 776

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order, without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. Ld.CIT (A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in making addition of Rs. 82,37,000/- u/s 69 in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. The entries were pertaining to firm and already accepted by M/s Ramesh Mahesh & Co. before ITSC as well as by the department in report u/s 245D(3). The addition in the hands of the assessee is unjustified, unreasonable and excessive and kindly be deleted in full. 4. Ld.CIT (A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the action of AO in making addition of Rs. 41,100/- u/s 68 in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. The entries were pertaining to firm and already accepted by M/s Ramesh Mahesh & Co. before ITSC as well as by the department in report u/s 245D(3). The addition in the hands of the assessee is unjustified, unreasonable and excessive and kindly be deleted in full. 5. Ld.CIT (A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the action of AO....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessee had paid Rs. 50,000/- to a travel agent and working unaccounted interest receipts of Rs. 41,100/- was noticed. The assessee has not disclosed these transactions in his books of accounts. AO called for the explanation of the assessee of these transactions. Assessee submitted the written reply contending that the papers were kept only for the purpose of memory and to show other partners, as and when required. The entries now have been already accepted by M/s Ramesh Mahes & Co. in the application before ITSC. This reply of the assessee was verified by the AO but not accepted and to protect the interest of revenue these transactions were added to the total income of the assessee on protective basis. 4. Aggrieved from the above order making the protective addition by the assessing officer, assessee challenged the finding of ld. Assessing Officer before ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the view of ld. Assessing Officer stating that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee has not furnished any information / evidence to rebut the finding of ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) has also observed that the assessee has even....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t filed a copy of the order of honorable Settlement Commission and the report of the department referred by him, to examine the claim of the appellant and the final fate of the same for perusal." Grounds of Appeal No. 1 The Ld. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case by passing order u/s 143(3)/153A dated 31.12.2019 for want of jurisdiction and various other statutory reasons. Submission: General in nature, hence not pressed. Grounds of Appeal No. 2 The ld.AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in making addition of Rs. 82,37,000/- u/s 69 in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. The entries were pertaining to firm and already accepted by M/s Ramesh Mahesh & Co. before ITSC as well as by the department in report u/s 245D(3). The addition in the hands of the assessee is unjustified, unreasonable and excessive and kindly be deleted in full. Grounds of Appeal No. 3 The ld.AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in making addition of Rs. 41,100/- u/s 68 in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. The entries were pertaining to firm and already accepted by M/s Rames....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e items. 4.2 A perusal of the working of peak determined by Ld.PCIT and annexed to report u/s 245D(3) shows that the peak working is containing 2402 Line items. 4.3 Further, the said working is exactly the same as submitted by Ld. PCIT in the report u/s 245D(3), from which the verification has been made by Ld.AO. For an instance peak balance at Serial No.37 as on 18-09-2013 is 44905.20 and the same is reiterated in the final order of ITSC. In the similar manner, each and every line item is 100% matching except for entry no. 82 of Rs. 40,500/- which was skipped in the report u/s 245D(3) (PBP: 240) but considered in the order of the Hon'ble ITSC (PBP: 42) resulting into difference of Rs. 40,500/-. However, after taking the effect of the same in the report u/s 245D(3), the resultant balance of report u/s 245D(3) (PBP: 273) will 100% match with the balance of the order of the Hon'ble ITSC (PBP: 152). In this reference, we are producing a reconciliation of the balance appearing in report u/s 245D(3) with the balance of order of the Hon'ble ITSC as follows: Particulars Amount Balance as per Report u/s 245D(3) (PBP: 273) (5,00,912.85) Add.: Entry No. 82 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on could have assisted in delivering judgement as per Income tax law which mandates fair proceedings and to tax real income and avoid double taxation. 5.4 Further, Ld. CIT(A) has further observed that the appellant has not furnished any information/evidence to rebut the finding of Ld.AO. In this regards it is important to note that appellant is not rebutting the finding of the Ld.AO, rather we are conceding the fact finding given by Ld.AO. The only development taken post the completion of assessment is the order of Hon'ble ITSC, which has confirmed the working of peak submitted by Ld. PCIT(Central), Jaipur and resultantly the protective addition so made may kindly be deleted in full. Appellant Prays for Justice." 6. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions: S.No. Particulars Page No. 1. Copy of order of Hon'ble Settlement Commission dated 03-12-2020 in the case of M/s Ramesh Mahesh and Co. 1-152 2. Copy of report of PCIT, (Central) Jaipur u/s 245D(3) dated 09.12.2019 153-272 3. Copy of Medical Prescription for Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta (CA/AR) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 142(1) were issued from time to time and same were compiled by the assessee. In the search operation at the residential and business premises of the assessee various incriminating documents has been found and seized on analysis of seized documents at Page No. 1 to 11 of Exhibit-28 of Annexure-AS (found and seized from the residence of Shri Mahesh Kumar Ladiwala at B-24, New Light Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur) and these were the pages of a diary which contains the details of cash loans. The amount of cash loan from the those pages was worked at Rs. 82,37,000/-. Ld. AO considered the same as unexplained investment of the assessee in form of cash loans. Further, assessee had paid Rs. 50,000/- to a travel agent and working unaccounted interest receipts of Rs. 41,100/- was noticed. As the assessee has not disclosed these transactions in his books of accounts, AO called for the explanation of the assessee on these transactions. Assessee submitted the written reply contending that the papers were kept only for the purpose of memory and to show other partners of M/s. Ramesh Mahesh & Co., where he is partner. The entries noted on those pages have already been accepted by M/s Ramesh Mahesh & C....