Satish Kumar Agrawal Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur)
ITAT Raipur held that providing unreasonably short period of time of six days for furnishing reply vide notice issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act is against the mandate of law and hence liable to be set aside. Accordingly, order passed thereof is quashed and matter restored back.
Facts- Survey proceedings u/s. 133A of the Act were conducted in the case of Shri Abhishek Agrawal, proprietor of M/s. Pratyush Steels and Shri Gitesh Agrawal, proprietor of M/s. Abhishek Enterprises. Information surfaced in the course of the survey proceedings that the assessee was one of the beneficiary of bogus purchase/sales. AO based on the aforementioned information initiated proceedings u/s.148A of the Act and made an addition of the entire amount of bogus purchases of Rs.1,80,84,701/- as the assessee unexplained investment u/s. 69C of the Act. Further, AO made an addition towards unexplained commission expenses of Rs.90,423/- i.e. @0.5% of Rs.1,80,84,701/- u/s. 69C of the Act.
Apropos the bogus sales aggregating to Rs.1,86,52,321/- made by the assessee, AO made an addition @12.5% of the impugned bogus sales i.e. Rs.23,32,540/-. Further, AO made an addition towards unexplained commission expenditure of Rs.11,658/-.
CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed. Main contention of assessee is that they have been allowed insufficient time of 6 days to furnish reply, hence the same not being as per mandate of law cannot be sustained.
Comments are closed.