TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 2171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1. For that the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and at any rate against the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play. 2. For that the National Faceless Appeal Centre failed to appreciate that the order of the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction. 3. For that the National Faceless Appeal Centre failed to appreciate that the reopening is bad in law and hence the consequent reassessment is also bad in law. 4. For National Faceless Appeal Centre failed to appreciate that the reopening of the assessment is time barred and hence the reassessment is bad in law. 5. For National Faceless Appeal Centre failed to appreciat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble limit and offered in the return of income. 12. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of the cash deposits made by the appellant as unexplained investment u/s.69. The cash deposits are appellant's business receipts through sales made to his customers. 13. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69 cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that merely because cash is deposited into the bank account of the appellant, it cannot be added as unexplained investment u/s.69. The bank statement cannot constitute as ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leted u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 by treating the said cash deposit of Rs. 11,52,000/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 and the assessment order was passed on 10.12.2018 by raising a demand of Rs. 5,75,670/-. 3.1 Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Before the first appellate authority, the assessee contended that he is in the business of sale of food grains as a street vendor, procuring food grains from the farmers and that the cash deposits represent the sales made by him. The assessee further contended that he is not maintaining any books of accounts and that if presumptive taxation u/s.44AD is adopted, the assessee's income would be Rs. 92,160/-, which is 8% of Rs. 11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee has not filed return of income for the assessment year under challenge. However, the assessee claims that, based on presumptive taxation u/s.44AD, there is no taxable income. We find that for the next assessment year also, after the receipt of notice u/s.148, the assessee had offered income under the presumptive scheme at 8% u/s.44AD and the income was below the basic exemption limit for taxation. The Assessing Officer had completed the assessment and accepted the returned income, thereby effectively accepting the margin of 8% claimed u/s.44AD by the assessee. We further find that the turnover offered for the impugned assessment year as well as the next assessment year is similar, with a marginal increase for the next assessment ye....