TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 878
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessment order is opposed to the law, equity, weight of evidence, and the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of INR 5,27,000/- under section 69A without considering that all withdrawals were duly recorded in the books of account maintained by the Appellant. The prerequisites for invoking section 69A were not met, and hence, the provision was erroneously applied by the AO. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to consider that the payments were made from cash savings and not through a banking channel, as the cheque was not encashed by the seller for reasons beyond the Appellant's control. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition under section 69A despite the Appellant providing clear and unambiguous explanations regarding the source of funds, which were from accumulated savings over the years. 6. The learned CIT(A) ignored the explanation, documentary proof, and confirmations submitted by the Appellant during the assessment proceedings. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding the valid evidence submitted b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in respect of the said property was Rs. 5,26,000/-. The AO had not accepted the said explanation on the ground that the cash book does not reflect the cash payments and also copy of the drawings account ledger was not produced and confirmed the addition made u/s. 69A of the Act. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and contended that the assessee had explained the source for the cash and therefore the addition made u/s. 69A is not correct since the cash payments were made out of the drawings. The assessee also submitted the details of the drawings during the year. The Ld.CIT(A) had confirmed the additions since the cash book does not contain the cash transactions. 4. As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) had not properly appreciated the ledger extract of the property purchased by him and also failed to consider the details of the drawings made during the year and therefore the addition confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) is not correct. The Ld.AR further submitted that the drawings account as well as the ledger of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f their contention. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 864/Bang/2025: The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: "1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order which is bad in law and liable to be quashed on the following grounds: a) Lack of jurisdiction. b) Erroneous assumption of jurisdiction. c) Violation of principles of natural justice. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of 224,02,370/- by estimating profit at 8% of turnover, despite the Appellant having already declared 7%, which aligns with industry standards. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the AO made an arbitrary and ad hoc addition without rejecting the Appellant's duly audited books of account. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the peculiarities of the construction industry, where maintaining real-time documentation for each cash transaction across multiple sites is not practically feasible. 5. The CIT(A) failed to take into account the complete disclosures and reconciliations submitted by the Appellant, inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1) to section 37 of the Act. The AO had also not accepted the net profit shown by the assessee at 8% in view of the various defects pointed out by him. The assessee submitted that they are maintaining the books of accounts and also books are audited at the end of the year and based on the said books, the return of income was filed and therefore the net profit declared at 7% has to be accepted. The AO had not accepted the profit at 7% and estimated the profit at 8% and taken the difference between the 7 and 8% as the additional income. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru and contended that the profit declared at 7% is based on the audited books of accounts and also contended that the assessee had maintained the books of accounts but during the search and survey, the books were not updated and therefore it could not be a reason to estimate the profit at 8% instead of 7%. The Ld.CIT(A) after extracting the finding given by the AO had confirmed the net profit at 8%. 11. As against the said order, present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal. 12. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the net profit declared a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ected the difference amount to the returned income as the income and made the addition to the returned income. 17. It is the case of the assessee that they had maintained the books of accounts but not updated the same in view of the nature of the business activities carried out by him. The assessee is doing various construction activities in different places and therefore he submitted that the books were not updated periodically but anyhow the said books were properly written and the said books were duly audited and on that basis, the net profit has been arrived at 7% of the total turnover. We have also considered the fact that the assessee would incur most of the expenses by cash since the major portion of the expenses were for labour and it could not be practicably possible to disburse the wages to the labourers by other modes. Normally the wages would be paid by the assessee by cash and the other expenses would be incurred by way of cash since the business of the assessee is of such a nature. Without pointing out any major defects, the AO could not have estimated the net profit at 8% even though as per audited books of accounts, the profit is at 7%. The assessee had declared ....