TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1402
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ought to have annulled the assessment made u/s 144 of the Act dated 21-03-2022. General ground 4.2 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act is invalid abinitio. General ground 4.3 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessment order is invalid on the ground that no notice u/s 153C of the Act has been issued to the assessee before the date of completion of assessment. Technical ground 4.4 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the A.O himself has observed in para 8 at page 3 of the assessment order that it is assessed u/s 144 r.w.s. 153C of the Act. Merit Ground 4.5 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the AO's observation in para 9 at page 4 of the assessment order that the assessment order is passed with the approval of Addl. CIT, Central Range-2, Hyderabad which fact fortifies that the assessment has been completed u/s 144 r.w.s. 153C of the Act. Merit Ground 4.6 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that it is sine qua non to issue a notice u/s 153C of the Act in the appellant's case in view of AO's observations in his show cause notice dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/ made towards unexplained investment Merit Ground 11 Without Prejudice to the other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying on the agreement of sale instead of the actual sale deed which is a registered document while quantifying the investment in the impugned property. Merit Ground 12 Appellant may, add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. General Ground 3. Ground Nos. 1 to 4.2 are general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 4. Ground Nos. 4.3 to 4.10: At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee has stated at Bar that the assessee does not press these grounds and the same may be dismissed as not pressed. The learned DR has raised no objection, if the Ground Nos.4.3 to 4.10 are dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly, Ground Nos.4.3 to 4.10 are being dismissed as not pressed. 5. Ground Nos. 5 to 9 are regarding the addition made by the Assessing Officer by estimating the net profit @ 8% which was restricted by the learned CIT(A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Thus, he has contended that the Assessing Officer has not given proper opportunity to the assessee before passing the assessment order. The learned Counsel for the assessee has further contended that the total bank credits cannot be considered as business turnover of the assessee for the purpose of estimation of profits. Further, it amounts to double taxation when the entire credits in the bank account is treated as turnover, as some of the credits were already taxed in the previous year. The Assessing Officer has also not taken into consideration the withdrawals from the bank account during the year. Thus, he has submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not justified and liable to be deleted. The assessee is a sub-contractor and is engaged in the business of civil contracts of demolition and excavation. The business receipts of the assessee are subjected to TDS u/s 194C of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is already declared by the assessee in the return of income. The learned Counsel for the assessee further contended that, even the estimation of income by the learned CIT(A) @ 8% on the gross receipts is highly arbitrary and e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dits in the bank account. Though the learned CIT(A) has restricted the net profit @ 8%, however, again no basis has been given by the learned CIT(A) for adopting the net profit @ 8%. It is pertinent to note that the past history of the net profit declared by the assessee and attained finality is a proper and reasonable guidance for estimation of the profit, in case the books of account of the assessee are rejected or turnover is found out of the books of account. In case of no past history of the assessee, the prevailing net profit in the business would be a guiding factor for estimation of income of the assessee from the said business. The assessee has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in case of DNR Constructions vs. Income Tax Officer (Supra) wherein the Tribunal has considered an identical issue in Para 8 as under: "8. We have heard the submissions of the parties and perused the material facts on record. So far as the first issue with regard to the rate of profit in estimating the income of the assessee is concerned, the CIT(A) is of the view that income in the case of the assessee had to be estimated due to unverifiable nature of expenditure claimed which does....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the contents of the agreement to sell and the sale deed, vide which the land was purchased by the assessee are not same. When the sale deed executed between the parties is not in pursuant to the alleged agreement found during the search and seizure action, then the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the said agreement is invalid and not sustainable. He has further contended that the parties in this agreement to sell are different than the parties in the sale deed vide which the assessee and her husband purchased the land for a consideration of Rs.1 crore. The learned Counsel for the assessee has contended that the registered document has a legal authority and would prevail over the unregistered agreement. The Assessing Officer ought to have considered the contents of the sale deed before making the addition. Unless and until it is proved that the agreement was acted upon and the amounts stated in the agreement was paid for sale, it cannot be held that the price mentioned in the sale deed is not correct. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. K.C Agnes (2003) 262 ITR 354 (Ker....