AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 290
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and not in consonance with the facts of the case. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting the additional evidences without confronting the AO which is in contravention with Rule 46A. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition without calling remand report from the AO despite of the fact that the case was completed u/s. 144 of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in estimating the GP at 1% instead of 1.5% as estimated by the AO despite the fact that assessee did not submit any document in order to verify sale / purchase. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,17,76,113/- made by the AO @ 10% of total unsubstantiated purchases despit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 57,970/- is bad in law and therefore, the same may please be deleted. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts of the case while sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,85,599/- made to the income of assessee by the Ld. AO on account of addition in Capital Account without appreciating that the submissions filed by the assessee. Also, no specific cogent material against the assessee was brought on record by the Ld. AO. As such, the addition of Rs. 1,85,599/- has been made merely on the basis of suspicion and therefore, the same may please be deleted. 4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts of the case while sustaining the addition of Rs. 6,02,350/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....He held that other additions were made on adhoc basis because the books have already been rejected ultimately, Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 1% of the GP by holding as under:- "8. I have gone through the submissions and the order. It is a fact that the Assessing Officer has rejected accounts and estimated the GP in respect of turnover shown by the appellant. Once the books of accounts are rejected, it does not warrant any ad-hoc addition in respect of the purchases, since the purchases have been taken into consideration while estimating the gross profit. The appellant had furnished the confirmation and even representative of the company had appeared before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer should have cross exami....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y he is making disallowance of 10% in respect of credit balance of M/s. India Technometal Co. Ltd. In view of the facts that books of accounts have already been rejected the adhoc addition made is deleted. 9. As far as the addition in respect of the sales is concerned the appellant has explained that the difference in the sundry creditors and purchase and sales shown was on account of the VAT but he was not able to furnish a reconciliation. I have gone through the financial accounts which were available in the assessment record. Perusal of the balance sheet and profit and loss account shows that the purchases shown in profit and loss account are Rs. 30,53,63,475/-. The sundry creditors are appearing in Schedule C at Rs. 31....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s explained that the same was made out of withdrawal from the personal account of the appellant. However, appellant was not able to substantiate the same. Even during the course of appeal, the appellant has not been able to illustrate as to how money was withdrawal from his personal account and deposited in his firm. The addition is therefore sustained. 12. The Assessing Officer observed there were deposits in the Punjab National Bank account of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 6,02,350/-. The appellant explained that Assessing Officer did not considered the cash withdrawal from the bank and made an addition on account of cash deposits. He stated that the cheques deposited in the bank were routine business credit in normal course of....