2025 (10) TMI 212

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Act, 1961 on 29.03.2023. The grounds of appeal are as under:- "1. That learned NFAC was not justified in upholding the order of the Ld. AO in view of the fact that the Assessment) was illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 2. That the Ld AO and Appellate authority only on premises an opinion has made the addition without confronting it to the assessee. Due to lack of opportunity to represent the of the case, the assessment order must be quashed. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the demand raised by the AO without looking into the fact the subsidy amount receive in the firm is transfer again and again from current account to saving account 4. That the Assessing office erred in fr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsferred to warehouse loan account at the same time. It denied the fact of any cash deposit of amount of Rs. Rs. 52,56,000/-. Accordingly, after asking the assessee to explain the nature and income from the subsidy receipts, to which the assessee did not reply, the ld. AO added back the subsidy receipt amounting to Rs. 50,99,500/- and the receipt of Rs. 24,99,700/-, which he observed to have been received on transfer from MMDC account. Applying the provisions of section 2(24)(xviii)(a), he thereupon proceeded to make the addition under section 69A. 3. Aggrieved with the said addition, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. There was a delay of approximately six months in filing the appeal but the ld. CIT(A) condoned th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he same under section 69A. Similarly, the sum of Rs. 24,99,700/- have been transferred from MMDC account and therefore, it could not be treated as unexplained money under section 69A. It was submitted that the ld. AO had not provided due opportunity to the assessee and it was for that reason that the assessee could not make full compliance before him. The ld. CIT(A) had not discussed the issue of notices or the non-compliance to the same in his order and therefore, it could not be said that the assessee had not made compliance during appeal proceedings. Accordingly, it was prayed that without appreciating the fact that the assessee had declared its income under section 44AD, the ld. AO had created a demand under section 69A and also erred i....