TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 47
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in Law, the learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer without considering the fact that the notice under section 148 has been issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer without the valid reasons to belief thereby making the assessment null and void. Hence, the addition of Rs. 21,07,642 may please be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to the above, On the facts and the prevailing circumstances of the case and in Law, the learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer without appreciating the submission made by the assessee during the course of assessment as well as appellate proceedings. Hence, the addition of Rs. 21,07,642 may please be deleted. 3. On the facts an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and Agricultural Income. The assessee e-filed the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 30.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 38,97,610/-. Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs. 47,00,000/- during de-monetization period issued notice u/s. 148 of the income tax act (referred to as "the Act") on 31.03.2021. The reasons recorded for reopening were given to the assessee to which objections were raised by the assessee and thereafter Ld. AO disposed all the objections followed by validly serving statutory notice u/s. 143(2) and u/s. 142(1) of the Act. The assessee filed detailed submissions. Ld. AO examined the same alongwith the cash book as well as proof of opening cash balance. L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... figures of gross turnover. The assessee also gave the details to Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) in the reply to the reasons recorded for re-opening and mentioned the details of the alleged cash deposits which were duly accounted in the books of account audited u/s. 44AB of the Act. He further submitted that based on the reply given by the assessee, there remained no scope to believe for escapement of income and therefore the AO ought to have dropped the re-assessment proceedings. 5.(b) So far as merits of the case are concerned, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the source of alleged cash deposits of Rs. 8,00,000/- is from the cash sales effected during the de-monetization period and the same are duly accounted in the regular books ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the figure of the gross turnover mentioned in the reasons recorded is incorrect and therefore the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is invalid. I however fail to find any merits in this contention because the basic purpose of the reopening is to examine the source of cash deposited during demonetization period and the figure of such cash deposits mentioned in the reasons recorded is correct. Further since the reassessment proceedings have been carried out within 4 years from the end of the assessment year, under the given facts and the reasons recorded, I find that Ld. AO was well within his jurisdiction for issuing notice u/s 148 and also to carry out reassessment proceedings. In view of the above, ground No. 1 raised by the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. AO taking the basis of TCS (Tax calculated at source) at Rs. 8,22,423/- has calculated the purchase figure at Rs. 4,11,21,155/- but this amount is higher than purchases of Rs. 2,47,75,641/- shown by the assessee. Ld. AO came to a conclusion that assessee has suppressed the purchases to the extent of Rs. 1,63,45,514/- and made the addition @8% of alleged suppressed purchases at Rs. 13,07,642/-. The assessee has filed the reconciliation statement of sand (LILAV a/c.). Going through the same, I notice that the opening balance of sand auction at 6 sites as on 01.04.2016 is Rs. 6,92,53,480/- Auction purchases during the year amounts to Rs. 4,16,21,155/- and the same corresponds to the TCS of Rs. 8,22,423/- referred by Ld. AO. Now during the ....