TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1797
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nafter referred to as "Ld. AO" or "Jurisdictional AO") u/s 147 r.w.s 144(B) of the Income Tax Act in case of the Appellant amounting to Rs.3,45,14,317/- on account of cash deposit made during the impugned financial year being treated as unexplained money. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) is in violation to the principles of natural Justice. The Appellant was deprived of adequate opportunity to present her submissions and thus impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition made by Ld. AO to the tune of Rs. 20,23,801/- u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE on account of estimated profit from alleged out of books purchases made from M/s Dry Nut Enterprises by the Appellant. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O in determining the income of Appellant u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE to the tune of Rs. 20,23,801/- by applying Gross profit rate to purchases 7.99% to amount of Rs. 2,53,43,410/- which is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble u/s 115BBE when detailed replies were submitted. 13. That the Ld. AO has grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in levying interest u/s 234B and 234C and such interest ought to be deleted. 14. That the computation of income and calculation of tax thereon made by the Ld. AO are incorrect and wrong in the eyes of law as this had resulted in creation of illegal demand of Rs. 3,49,94,230/- on a total assessed income of Rs. 3,50,95,777/- after making an untenable addition of Rs. 3,45,14,317/-. The above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave to add/amend/withdraw any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing or at any time before hearing with due permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal." 3. Facts, in brief are that Sh. Rohit Goel, the assessee in the present case, is an individual who filed his original return of Income for A.Y. 2020-21 on 15.02.2021, showing an income of Rs. 5,81,460/-. The assessee is running a proprietorship concern namely, M/s. Laxmi International at 80, Gandhi Gali, Fatehpuri, Delhi-110006, wherein he was engaged in the business of trading spices and dry fruits. He is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d part replies from time to time which included his Balance Sheet, P&L Statement, GST return and bank statement of one bank account with Central Bank of India bearing account number 3584892367. The assessee further stated that through his proprietorship M/s. Laxmi International, it made total sales and purchases of Rs. 1,43,39,893 and Rs. 1,46,92,507/- respectively during the FY 2019-20. The assessee submitted ledgers of 4 parties namely M/s Dry Nut Enterprises, M/s Siddharth Overseas, M/s Ganesh Kirana Company, M/s Santosh Ram & Co. Further, apart from sale proceeds received from M/s Dry Nut Enterprises, the assessee has also received cash credit from M/s Dry Nut Enterprises. It also submitted that the assessee does not maintain stock register. 10. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found from the examination of the assessee's bank statement of account in Central Bank of India bearing number 3584892367 maintained in the name of Sri Laxmi International, that total debits and credits amounted to Rs. 4,56,32,717/- and Rs. 4,48,19,235 respectively during the FY 2019-20 and out of the above total credits of Rs. 4,48,19,235, cash credits during the concerned AY amounted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccorded multiple opportunities to explain the mismatch/discrepancy in his books and the ones found in his bank statement. The assessee submitted part replies but did not submit cogent evidence or materials to explain the discrepancies found in the books of the assessee. Accordingly, ground no 3 regarding violation of natural justice is dismissed. 14. With respect to ground 9 regarding assessment made u/s 143(3) being bad in law in cases where the books of accounts are found to be fabricated, then rejection of books is found to be justified and best judgement assessment under section 144 is needed. We find that the AO has found various mismatch in the accounts but has not specifically rejected the books of accounts invoking the provisions of section 145(3). We find however, that the AO has proceeded to make the assessment in the manner provided under section 144 of the Act. As narrated above, the AO, after taking into account all relevant material which he had gathered, gave the assessee several opportunities of being heard by serving several notices u/s 142(1) and show causes to make the assessment of the total income to the best of his judgment and determine the sum payable by ....