RINA EGG CENTRE,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(4), BURDWAN, BURDWAN

In this case, the appellant is engaged in the business of wholesale trading of eggs. The appellant filed his return of income on 27.03.2018 and thereafter the case was picked up for scrutiny, as a result of which the following additions have been made: a) Rs. 11.20 Lakh on account of cash deposited in bank account. b) Rs. 263,165/- on account of difference in turnover disclosed and gross receipts evidenced from the bank account.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in holding the addition of profit earned out of undisclosed business of Rs. 2,68,165/- having wrongly considered the difference between total of all credits in all banking Accounts and the turnover as per Audited Profit N Loss Account without considering inter Bank transactions and/or Inter Branch transfers which should not be considered as undisclosed sales, the impugned addition made by the Assessing officer is arbitrary and without any basis and should be deleted.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer treating as unexplained investment made in undisclosed stocks out of books and thus making an addition of Rs. 16,67,83,605/- as per the provision of section 69 of the Act calculated on the basis of reply submitted against notice u/s 138(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without providing opportunity to the Appellant to justify the claim and without considering the fact that no transaction was made during the financial year under appeal, the impugned addition made by the Assessing officer is arbitrary and without any basis and should be deleted.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in treating as unexplained expenditure and thus making addition of Rs. 13,19,354/- calculated wrongly on the basis of reply submitted against notice u/s 133(6) of the LT. Act, without considering the fact there actually was no difference of transaction and the addition made by him on the basis of wrong calculation and the allegation of unexplained expenditure was due to limited exposure and the impugned addition made by the Assessing officer is arbitrary and without any basis and should be deleted.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in holding the disallowance of expenses including Transport Charges on Ad hoc basic i.e. 5pc of Rs. 2,80,18,601/-amounting to Rs. 11,51,363/- on the alleged ground that the supporting evidence was not produced without considering that ledger accounts were submitted and the impugned disallowance made by the Assessing officer is arbitrary and without any basis and should be deleted.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in holding the disallowance of 30 pc of accounting Charges of Rs. 96,000/- debited in Profit N Loss Account of Rs. 28,800/- without considering the fact that the same will not liable to deduct tax and the impugned disallowance made by the Assessing officer is arbitrary and without any basis and should be deleted.

That, the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/ or rescind any or all of the above grounds.” 1.2. Right at the outset, the ld. A/R averred that in spite of some details filed before the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO') it has been mentioned in several places in the assessment order (especially on page 2 of the order of the ld. AO) that as many as 11 notices sent were either not responded to or in some cases only part compliance made thereon. The ld. A/R also pointed out that even the ld. CIT(A) has recorded in para 4 of page 3 of the impugned order that notices sent from time to time were not responded to. Be that as it may the ld. A/R vehemently asserted that considerable details were filed before both the lower authorities and they could have evaluated the documents before them easily.