TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 386
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-20. The word 'Act' herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. Additional Ground: The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the assessment order of A.O, by ignoring the fact that the matter of assessee was not centralised within 15 days of issue of notice u/s 143(2) as per guidelines issued in F.No.225/126/2020/ITA-II dated 17/09/2020. 2. Additional Ground: The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the assessment order of A.O. which is passed with mechanical approval of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-8, New Delhi which in fact was not required. The reference letter of approval shows it is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e period from 10.09.2018 to 23.10.2018 totaling to Rs. 65,17,451/- 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the assessment order of A.O passed by holding that the alleged cash sales is for 45 days and the total undisclosed cash sales of the assessee for 365 days is Rs. 5,28,63,769/- as against the total turnover of Rs. 4,08,29,273/-declared by the assessee in its return of income filed for the year under consideration 9. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the assessment order of A.O without considering the submission made by the appellant that the alleged impounded Annexures are in the nature of rough noting and jottings. Had the assessee done the cash sales corres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 145(3) of Income Tax Act for estimating the higher GP of 8% without pointing out any single defect in the books of account. 3. The appellant has raised legal grounds of appeal as well as those on merits of addition. The ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that as the legal grounds strike at the root of the matter, the same be adjudicated first in preference to other grounds. Explaining the brief factual matrix of the case, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Return of Income was filed on 26.09.2018 declaring income of Rs. 2,81,790/-. Thereafter, a survey was conducted upon the assessee u/s 133A on 31.10.2018. The appellant/assessee firm is engaged in the business of food chemicals and other items. Survey proceedings indica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffice letter F.No.JCIT/CR8/153D/2021- 22/1276 dated 29.09.2021....." 6. The ld. Counsel vehemently argued that the said findings of the ld. Assessing Officer clearly alludes that there was intervention of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-8, New Delhi in the assessment order and that as the same is not permissible and would constitute an interference in Assessing Officer's working, the assessment order dated 29.09.2021 has become non-est. The ld. Counsel argued that the assessee was subjected to a survey operation under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act on 31/10/2018, and not a search and seizure operation. The proceedings were initiated by issuing a notice u/s 143(2) and the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bom. HC) categorically dealt with this exact proposition, holding that "An act which is done by an authority contrary to the provisions of the statue, itself causes prejudice to assessee". The Court ruled that all assessee's possess a fundamental and indefeasible entitlement to be assessed strictly as per the law and by following the procedure prescribed by law. Therefore, when an authority proposes to take action without following due process, the said action itself results in a prejudice to assessee and there is no question of assessee having to prove further prejudice before arguing the invalidity of the action. 7. The ld. Counsel submitted that as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs 2015]....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... they must exercise it according to their own discretion. If the discretion is exercised under the direction or in compliance with a higher authority's instruction, "it will be a case of failure to exercise discretion altogether" and constitutes an invalid "exercise of power on the basis of external dictation". The AO in the present case failed to bear his own independent and unfettered judgment, instead forwarding a draft assessment to the JCIT for validation. 8. The ld. DR placed reliance upon the decision of lower authorities. The fact of inscription placed by the ld. Assessing Officer in para-10 of his order (supra) could not be satisfactorily controverted. 9. It is trite law discussed in judicial precedents hereinabove that d....