2025 (6) TMI 1037

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 93,52,965/- by not appreciating the fact of the case. In this regard, it is the fact that the assessee has declared total turnover of Rs. 9,89,46,806/- but as per GSTR-I data total turnover is Rs. 10,82,99,771/-. Hence, the difference of the turnover Rs. 93,52,965/- and total credits in her bank is under reported her income. In this regard, assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidences regarding the difference in turnover of Rs, 93,52,965/- even ample opportunities given to the assessee." 2. It is noted that there is a delay of 59 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal. Upon careful consideration, we find considerable cogency in the contention of the ld. DR that delay in dispute has occurred due to huge wor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of income. Etc. 3.2 On perusal of income tax return, the AO noticed that the assessee has declared total turnover of Rs. 9,89,46,806/-. Whereas as per GSTR-1 data available on insight portal total turnover is Rs. 10,82,99,771/-. Hence, the difference of the turnover Rs. 93,52,965/- is under reported with respect to turnover declared. The assessee was asked about the above difference, in response the assessee submitted that in the books the turnover declared is Rs. 9,89,46,806/- but the labour charges are not included in it, it is Rs. 1,01,000/-. Hence, the turnover is Rs. 9,90,47,806/-. Further he has submitted that the rest of the amount of difference is 'invoice no. 010/hp/21-22 dated 24.04.2021 Shri Ishwar paper. The invoice has not b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... physically and or via a VC Hearing, passed an order post haste where he added the entire proposed amount of Rs. 93,52,965/- to the income of the assessee. I have noted that as is evident, the impugned assessment order is passed by the AO without judiciously and or pragmatically considering various submissions made by the appellant. Further, since the appellant was not allowed an opportunity to be heard which is a constitutional right and or the basic right of the assessee, this was clearly against the principles of natural justice and the proceedings and the order are illegal. Considering the aforesaid facts and other evidence filed before me I note that the AO was not justified in making the addition of Rs. 93,52,965/- a....