TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1795
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the trade name "Shrikrishna Builders & Developers" and also partner in the firm viz., M/s. Radhakrishna Associates which was carrying on business under the name and style of Priyanka Bar & Restaurant. For the impugned assessment year, the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 6,68,630/- and agriculture income of Rs. 2,98,740/-. The case of the assessee has been selected for scrutiny under CASS. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices u/sec.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act and served upon the assessee. The Authorised Representative of the Assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and filed the requisite details. After examining the details furnished by the assessee, the Assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/sec.69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenditure in absence of any supporting documentary evidence. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. During the course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the authorities below are not properly appreciated the facts of the case and documents on record and made the impugned additions. He submitted that the authorities below disallowed 50% of the expenses made on account of Majuri, salary expenses, labor expenses, transportation expenses, job-work expenses and purchase bills. He submitted that the authorities below did not dispute the fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the assessee has purchased goods from M/s. SP Traders and Sunora Ceramic and the payments were due to be paid and hence the assessee has shown these two parties as sundry creditors. He submitted that the assessee has produced copies of bills before the lower authorities with a submission that the said parties must have accounted for the goods purchased by him in the next year. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee, accordingly, submitted the authorities below without properly appreciating the explanation of the assessee nor making proper enquiries, made the impugned addition of Rs. 1,09,532/- in the hands of assessee and, he prayed that the said addition may please be deleted in the interest of substantial justice. 6. The Learned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee on this count that the assessee has produced the bills before the authorities and the only discrepancy is that the said parties viz., S P Traders [Rs. 1,09,532/-] and Sunora Ceramic [Rs. 1,83,900] must have accounted for the goods purchased by the assessee in the next year. Since the payments were due to these parties by the assessee, the assessee has shown them as sundry creditors. I, therefore, deem it fit to restore the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for afresh verification and adjudication of the matter in issue, by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, it is the sole risk and responsibility of the assessee to plead and prove his case in consequential proceedings. 7.2. Now....