TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 776
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(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 in making addition of Rs. 50,000/- u/s 69C in the hands of the assessee on prot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1,100/- 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 though various opportunities were given not furnished any information and therefore, on these content....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 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 A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fication 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 40,500.00 Balance as per Order of Hon'ble ITSC (PBP: 152) (4,60,412.85) Without prejudice to anything stated above and without any admission, even otherwise also, the entry no. 82 neither pertain to the current period nor to the Exhibit-28. 4.4 Thus it is evidently clear that final order of ITSC has reit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting 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) 273-273 4. Duly Notarized affidavit of Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta (CA/AR) 274-276 7. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that the assessee in the assessment proceedings has categorically submitted that the transactions reflected in those loose papers were already considered in the settlement petition filed by Ramesh Mahesh & Co. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 & Co. in the application filed 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 u/s. 69, 69C & 68 respectively. As explained by the ld. AR of the assessee fairly accepting the fact that when the last two notices issued for hearing by the ld. CIT(A) he was a....