TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e after giving appeal effect will be net profit of 8% on total gross business receipt of Rs. 79,95,179/- which includes gross receipt/sale of Rs. 46,27,013/ declared by the assessee. After allowing a rebate of Rs. 1,11,104/- u/s 80C, 80TTA and 80GG (already allowed by the Ld. AO in the Assessment Order) and adding other income of Rs. 1,426/- Total Income should be Rs. 5,29,936/- only and therefore payable demand was under the impression that will be very limited and not advisable to file an appeal. 4. But the Ld. AO first passed the appeal effect of order u/s 250 of the IT Act on 26.09.2023 Rs. 36,28,667/- creating a huge demand again paper book page no. 01. The assessee submitted an application u/s 154 and the Ld. AO passed the appeal effect order again r.w.s. 154 Rs. 9,00,115/- paper book page no. 06-07 your honour can see that demand raised is Rs. 2,17,954/- paper book page no. 08-09 whereas the assessee income should be, after giving appeal effect Rs. 5,29,936/-. The assessee submitted again an application u/s 154 on dated 29.09.2023 paper book page no. 02-05 and the Ld. AO had yet not passed the appeal effect order. Your honour kind attention is invited to the facts i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2 The ld. AR of the assessee appearing in this appeal submitted that the assessee is serious on the duties and the delay of 29 days in preparation and filing of appeal was on account of sufficient reasons and the common understanding of the assessee on the appeal disposed by the ld. CIT(A). Considering that aspect of the matter ld. AR prayed that the liberal approach in deciding the petition for condonation as the assessee is not going to achieve any benefit for the delay in fact the assessee is at risk. 2.3. During the course of the hearing, the ld. DR fairly did not objected to assessee's application for condonation of delay and prayed that Court may decide the issue as deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted that the reasons advanced by the assessee for condonation of delay of 29 days are sufficient to condone the delay and it has merit based on the prayer advanced by the assessee as per the prayer made to condone the delay. Thus, we concur with the submission of the assessee and condone the delay of 29 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee in view of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... consideration of non compliance on the part of the assessee, he had no alternative except completing the time- barring assessment u/s 144 of the Act and for that and in order to afford final opportunity to the assessee, a detailed show-cause notice u/s 144(1) of the I.T. Act 1961 was issued on 02.12.2016 and got served through Regd. Post fixing the case for hearing on 12.12.2016. On the date of hearing fixed on 12.12.2016 neither the assessee attended personally or through an authorized representative nor furnished any written submission, therefore the case was completed u/s 144 of the Act based on the material available with the AO. While doing so ld. AO based on the AIR information noted that the assessee in the year under consideration deposited total cash of Rs. 2,98,600 in his saving bank account with Bank of Baroda and Rs. 76,99,179/- in ICICI Bank Ltd. Since, the assessee offered no explanation regarding these cash deposits and not furnished any documentary evidences regarding source of the cash deposits, therefore, considering the facts of the case, total of the cash deposits of Rs. 79,95,179/- was treated as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT. Act, 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee furnished all bank statement of the assessee, Bank Book, Cash Book and sale and purchases bill, confirmation of parties and ledger accounts. Your Honour the Ld AO confirmed that the Ld AO verified the same. Your Honour the Ld AO after verification state that the assessee has not submitted any documentary evidences for his claim. Where is the fact is that the assessee submitted that the assessee several time withdrawal the cash and if cash is not utlised then the same is deposited in bank account. Kindly see Ld CIT(A) order page no.4 para 1 line no. 5 on wards. The assessee is producing here with a table showing summary of cash book:- S. No. particular Debit Credit 1. Opening balance 646127.28 2. Cash withdraw from ICICI Bank 2380500.00 3. cash withdrawn from Bank of Baroda 4201183.00 4. Cash withdraw from HDFC Bank 11600.00 5. Cash withdraw from PNB Bank 2636800.00 6. Cash Sales 4884468.00 7. Cash deposited in Bank ICICI 7833978.00 8. Cash deposited in Bank of Baroda 3322431.00 9. Cash deposited in PNB ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2001 31-34 5. (1994) 75 Taxman 164 ( Calcutta)/(1994) 207 ITR 979 Calcutta/(1995) 124 CTR 113 (Calcutta) (2304.1993) High Court of Calcutta CIT v. Ranicherra Tea Co. Ltd. 35-38 6. Reply 18.11.2016 AY 2014-15 39-39 7. Reply of SCN 2.12.2016 AY 2014-15 40-40 8. Reply 143(2) 05.09.2016 AY 2014-15 41-41 9. Cash book AY 2014-15 42-49 10. BOB Ledger AY 2014-15 50-52 11. PNB Ledger AY 2014-15 53-55 12. ICICI Bank Ledger AY 2014-15 56-61 13. Shop Allotment Krishi Mandi 62-71 14. Sales details 72-83 15. Appeal effect of order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 84 8. Ld. AR of the assessee also filed a day wise cash book showing each day balance of cash in support of the contention that the assessee has reposited the money for an amount of Rs. 33,68,166/- out of the earlier balance available and that aspect of the matter being not considered the present appeal lies and to support the cash book already filed he demonstrated that there is no negative balance if the earlier withdrawal is considered as source of cash deposit for an amount of Rs. 33,68,166/- and thereby the order of ld. CIT(A....