SAI MOTORS,INDORE (M.P.) vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, KHARGONE, KHARGONE

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not condoning delay in filing of appeal even when the appellant was having sufficient cause for not present appeal before due date of filing of appeal and therefore, the appeal was required to be admitted as per section 249(3) of the Act.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Assessing Officer erred in adding an amount of Rs. 13,50,000/- to the total income of the appellant on account of cash deposited in the bank account during the demonetization period in old notes (SBNs) by treating it as unexplained money R under section 69A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and consequently charged tax at the rates prescribed under section 115BBE of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 without properly appreciating the facts of the case

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Assessing Officer erred in computing the amount of tax liability by invoking the amended provisions of section 115BBE of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 even in respect of cash deposited 3 in the bank account of the appellant which were prior to 15-12- R 2016 i.e. prior to the date of obtaining assent from the President of India and hence, in any case, amended provisions of section 115BBE of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 would not be applicable in the facts of the present case

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Assessing Officer erred in estimating the net profit of the appellant under section 44AD of the Act at the rate of 8 percent of total credits in the bank account of Rs. 1,43,59,412/- which 5 also included the amount of cash deposited in the bank account during the demonetization period in old notes (SBNs) of Rs. 13,50,000/- in respect of which separate addition had already been made by the Assessing Officer himself thereby leading to double taxation of the same amount. Sai Motors– A.Y 2017-18 3

The appellant reserves the right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by it”

At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for restoring the issues raised on merits in the instant appeal to the file of Ld. Juri ictional Assessing Officer. He submitted that Ld. A.O has passed an order u/s 144 of the Act as best judgment assessment and before Ld. CIT(A) assessee failed to succeed because Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay, 4. On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) but do not oppose the request of Ld. Counsel for the assessee of relegating the issues to the file of Juri ictional Assessing Officer. 5. I have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before me. I observe that the assessee is a partnership firm and carries on business as authorized centre of vehicles sold by M/s Nimar Motors. Income of Rs.31,900/- declared in the Income Tax Return for Assessment Year 2017-18 e-filed on 19.01.2018. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by serving valid notices u/s 143(1) and 143(2) of the Act. During the course of assessment Sai Motors– A.Y 2017-18 4

When the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIt(A) there was a delay in filing the appeal. Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by not adjudicating the grounds raised on merits. Before me the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the submissions made in Form No.35 at column 15 stated that soon after receiving the assessment order dated 30.11.2019 the assessee has deposited appeal fee of Rs.1000/- on 26.03.2020. Immediately thereafter due Sai Motors– A.Y 2017-18 5