ITAT Surat held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable since AO has not made any independent investigation of fact. Accordingly, ad hoc disallowance @10% upheld to avoid the possibility of revenue leakage.
Tribunal in the case of Yegneswari General Traders vs. ITO has held that based on CBDT circular no. 452 it is clear that Kaccha Arahtias turnover includes only the gross commission and not the sales effected on behalf of their principals.
The assessee is an individual, engaged in the business as Kerosene dealers in Rajahmundry. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS “Limited Category” to verify the sources for “Cash deposits during demonetisation period”.
The assessee has not filed any return of income. As per the information, the reasons were recorded and subsequently the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act. In response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee did not file any reply.
The assessee filed three appeals against order of CIT(A) for A.Y. 2010-11, 2012-13 and 2013-14. It is important to note that inspite of putting up the case of hearing several times, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee.
A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 23.07.2015 and subsequent dates in different business and residential premises of Deepak Agarwal, Mukesh Kumar and others, group of cases based at Delhi.
The present appeal is preferred by the revenue challenging quashing of the notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act. Revenue has mainly contested that CIT (A) has quashed the notices on the ground that it is barred by limitation.
ITAT Nagpur held that when a liquidation order has been passed, no suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted by or against the corporate debtor. Thus, IBC Code will override anything inconsistent contained in any other enactment, including Income Tax Act.
CIT(A) confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.1.42 crores and remaining addition of Rs.3.35 crores, which was closing balance of loans were deleted. Further aggrieved, the revenue has filed present appeal before the Tribunal.
During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that there was cash deposit of Rs. 36,48,000/- and credit entries of Rs. 21,93,269/-. AO observed that inspite of repeated reminders, assessee failed to submit the reply.
