TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2089
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elay of 65 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the partner of the assessee-firm. The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that due to non-participation of the Authorized Representative before the CIT(A), the impugned order so passed by the CIT(A) was not in the knowledge of the assessee till the assessee received the copy of the said order. The Ld.AR has submitted that the assessee immediately approached another Counsel for the legal remedy against the impugned order and in that process, there is a delay in filing the present appeal. The Ld.AR has submitted that since the Counsel authorized by the assessee to represent before the CIT(A) has not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....due to non-participation of the Authorized Representative before the CIT(A). The assessee was dependent upon the Counsel who was authorized to represent before the CIT(A) but due to failure on the part of the Counsel to participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A), the impugned order was passed by the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal and upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, in such situation, the assessee explained that he has to approach another Counsel for taking the legal advice against the impugned order which has caused the delay of 65 days in filing the present appeal. Having considered the explanation of the assessee which is supported by the affidavit and further the addition made by the Assessing Officer whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioned in the statement of facts accompanying these grounds, shall be treated as part and parcel of these grounds and shall be dealt with. 4. For these and other reasons that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that Hon'ble Tribunal to kindly delete the addition made by Assessing Officer and sustained by CIT(A)." 6. The Ld.AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is a dealer and in the business of sale of Vodafone recharge coupons. The sale proceeds on sale of recharge coupons is received in cash which was deposited in the bank for further transfer to the Telephone Company (Vodafone). The Ld.AR has further submitted that Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs. 44,54,000/- on account of un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and claiming the same as turnover of the assessee cannot be accepted. He relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 8. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the material available on record. There is no dispute that the Assessing Officer found from the VAT returns of the assessee is that there is a sales turnover of Rs. 5,40,54,584/- declared from the Vodafone recharge coupons etc. The Assessing Officer after reducing the deposit of Rs. 44,54,000/- taken the turnover of the assessee at Rs. 4,96,00,584/- for estimating the income of the assessee by adopting the Gross Profit @ 2%. Thus, the Assessing Officer has made two additions ie., (i) unexplained cash deposit in the bank account and (ii) estimation of income by ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Net Profit from this Business, after a expenditures, is proposed to be estimated to be Rs. 9,92,012/- (i.e., @ 2% of Rs. 4,96,00,584/- based on the Gross Profit declared by the firm in the ROI for the A.Y 2015-16 and the Nature of business) and brought to tax. Accordingly, the total income proposed to be brought to tax was Rs. 54,46,012. However, till date, there is no response to this Show Cause notice from the assessee firm." 9. Once the turnover of the assessee was accepted at Rs. 5.40 Crs (supra), and there was regular cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee which was in turn transferred to Vodafone, then the assessee was prima facie able to explain the source of the cash deposit in the bank account. The only o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot be accepted. The Assessing Officer has estimated the income by taking a reasonable view and adopting the Gross Profit ratio @ 2% which is just and proper. He has relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 11. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer has adopted the Gross Profit @ 2% by taking past history of the assessee. It is pertinent to note that while estimating the income of the assessee, only the profit element in the turnover of the assessee can be assessed as income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has taken the assessee's Gross Profit instead of Net Profit declared by the assessee in the preceding years which is not justified in the facts and ....