Since assessee had explained that the two partners had cash deposited out of the cash receipts against advanced sale of land in individual however, assessee could not furnish any details evidence of holding of land, agreement with the purchasers and date/mode of source of receipts either before AO or before CIT(A), therefore, AO was correct in holding these credits as unexplained in the hands of assessee.
When the books of accounts was rejected, the income of assessee was to be estimated on some reasonable basis for which comparable case and history of assessee could be taken as a guide. Thus, the N.P rate @ 8% applied by the authorities below was without any basis and material on records, the same was rejected and was considered fair to apply an average rate of earlier two years which was 3.50%.
Since the cash deposit made by assessee was from the business activities of glass bangle trading business, therefore, no addition under section 69 over and above the returned income would be warranted.
otice under section 148 issued on the basis of insufficient compliance to Letters dated 20.05.2011 and dated 02.02.2016 were wholly unauthorized in law as the reasons recorded must indicate that AO had applied his mind to the fact that income was chargeable to tax under the Act and it had exceeded maximum amount not chargeable to income Tax. Hence, reassessment was not valid as there were no reasons recorded by AO in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction in this case.
Proceedings under section 148 could not be initiated for verification of the sources of investment and therefore, the reasons recorded by AO were no reasons in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction for issuing notice under section 148.
Notice under section 148 could not be issued for verification of information, but here the jurisdictional satisfaction of the essential requirement had to be shown that there had to be reason to believe that there was income chargeable to tax which was not there in the assessment order passed. Thus, the reasons recorded by AO were no reasons in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction and the assessment orders u/s 144 read with 147 was quashed.
Where no notice under section 148 is issued or if the notice so issued is shown to be invalid, or the service of notice so issued, is shown to be invalid, AO could not proceed with the subsequent proceedings for making assessment, reassessment or re-computation under section 147. Unless, the notice was served on the proper person in the manner prescribed under section 282, the service was insufficient and AO did not have jurisdiction to re-assess the escaped income.
Shri Om Prakash Singh Vs ACIT (ITAT Agra) When we test the explanation of the assessee in the light of evidences available on records and the precedents governing the issue, we find that identity of the Company who has advanced money to the assessee is proved beyond doubt. There can be hardly any dispute regarding […]
We find that the issue in question, before us, is to decide whether there is any merit in rejection of books of account of the assessee by the AO and the applicability of method of accounting in the case of the assessee i.e. project completion method of accounting as adopted by the assessee vis a vis percentage completion method of accounting as held to be applicable by the revenue.
Fateh Chand Trust & College Committee Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Agra) Department Can Examine Only Object of the Trust and Not Application of Income at the Time of Granting of Registration of Trust FACTS – Assessee is society, engaged in running and maintenance of Fateh Chand Inter College. College is fully aided by UP Government […]
