2026 (5) TMI 1341

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der dated 30.05.2024 passed in appeal No NFAC/2014-15/10109836 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for the A.Y. 2015-16, wherein ld CIT(A) has enhanced assessee's income by taking the entire receipts of Rs. 2,65,70,542/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act as against the addition on the basis of estimated profit @ 8% of the entire receipts/ total credit, made vide assessment order dated 31.03.2022 passed u/s. 147/144/144B of the Act. 3. The brief facts state that the assessee filed his return of income on 29.03.2016, for A.Y 2015-16, declaring total income o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion u/s. 44AE in assessee's case, was disproved by ld CIT(A) and enhanced the income of the assessee by treating the entire receipts of Rs. 2,65,70,542/-, as unexplained u/s. 69A of the Act. 5. Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on the following grounds: "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals), has erred in enhancing the income without issuing a show cause notice / opportunity of hearing, as mandated u/s 250(6B) & 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 2. That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A), has erred in law and on facts in deleting the action of AO of presumptive taxation and considered the bank receipts of Rs. 2,65,70,542/- as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2,65,70,542/- of total amount deposited by the assessee into bank. Thus said straightway enhancement is bad in law, as well as against law of natural justice and uncalled for and may kindly be set aside the order. 6. That on the basis of facts and records Ld. CIT(A) has erred in estimating the income of Rs. 2,65,70,542/- on the basis of whims, conjecture and surmises after ignoring that the mostly credit entries in books of accounts are gross receipt of freight, sale proceeds of cattle as well as sale purchase proceeds of cattle on commission basis. 7. That the appropriate order for granting justice and relief be passed. 8. Your appellant reserves its right to add to amend to alter or to modify any of above grou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elevant observations made in para 5 of the tribunal order read as under: "5. We find no merit to accept the Revenue's foregoing vehement contentions. This is for the precise reason that once the Assessing Officer's identical assessment discussion had treated the assessee's cash deposits in both these assessment years as his business income liable to be assessed @8%, the learned CIT(A)'s enhancement could not have changed the said head income itself in light of CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864(Del.) and CIT vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 ITR 556(Del). We thus reverse the learned CIT(A)'s impugned enhancement for this precise reason alone. Ordered a....