SHREENATHJI ASSOCIATES,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

The appellant humbly states that the submissions in support of the Grounds of Appeal could not be filed since the A.R. who was entrusted with and was handling the Income Tax matters neither informed the appellant about the notices received from the office of the Id. CIT(A) nor complied with the same by filing written submissions so much so that the appellant was also not aware of passing of an ex- parte order by the Id. CIT(A) since the same in all likeliness must have been uploaded on the email ID of the previous A.R. as appearing on ITBA platform. In view of above peculiar circumstances, the appellant humbly requests your honour to set-aside the matter to the file of the Id. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after giving adequate opportunity to the appellant.

The Id. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.14,61,623/- made by the AO being brokerage paid to two parties for their services rendered on sale of land. In view of facts, submission and evidences filed and available on record, the impugned addition which is an allowable business expenditure u/s.37(1) of the Act requires to be deleted.

The Id. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that the AO had failed to furnish the copy of material or evidences relied upon including the statements recorded as referred to and relied upon in the assessment order, along with an opportunity of cross examination of such persons by the appellant. The impugned addition was thus arbitrary in nature and wholly unjustified.

The Id. CIT(A) has also erred in not considering and appreciating the fact that the appellant had not only deducted TDS from the brokerage payment but had also deposited the same in government account and had filed sufficient evidences in support of the genuineness of the payments made. That apart, the payment made being through banking channel, it could not have been disbelieved merely on some statements extracted from the parties, more

The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the impugned addition of Rs.5,25,189/- made by the AO on account of gross profit on sale of land by treating the same as having been made during A.Y.2013-14 as against income offered by the appellant in A.Y.2014-15. The appellant states that since the income on sale of the said land having been offered by the appellant in subsequent year, the AO be directed to reduce the income of A.Y.2014-15 to the extent of addition made in A.Y.2013-14 as not doing so would result in double taxation of the same income. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify or delete any of the above grounds and to submit additional grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal.

The appellant humbly states that the submissions in support of the Grounds of Appeal could not be filed since the A.R. who was entrusted with and was handling the Income Tax matters neither informed the appellant about the notices received from the office of the Id. CIT(A) nor complied with the same by filing written submissions so much so that the appellant was also not aware of passing of an ex-parte order by the Id. CIT(A) since the same in all likeliness must have been uploaded on the email ID of the previous A.R. as appearing on ITBA platform. In view of above peculiar circumstances, the appellant humbly requests your honour to set-aside the matter to the file of the Id. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after giving adequate opportunity to the appellant. [II] Addition on account of differential value of land while invoking the provisions of Section 43CA of the Act - Rs. 1,59,58,994/-

The Id. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,59,58,994/- made by the AO invoking the provisions of Section 43CA of the Act without proper consideration and appreciation of the facts of the case and settled legal position. In view of facts, submission and evidences filed and available on record as also the submission of the appellant reproduced in the ITA Nos.592, 593 & 594/Ahd/2024 Asst. Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

The Id. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the AO in reopening of assessment despite the fact that the same was based on incorrect facts and merely on surmises and conjectures, which stood substantiated and proved beyond doubt by the AO's own action while assessing the same income as assessed in the original order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, while previously alleging difference between Jantri Value taken in original assessment order and as stated and assumed by him for reopening the assessment.

The appellant states that the Jantri value assumed for reopening of assessment being without any basis and which also stood confirmed by the Stamp Duty Authorities as observed by the AO himself, the reopening of assessment and the consequential order in dispute requires to be quashed as void-ab-initio.

The Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that when no addition as proposed in the reasons recorded having been made by the AO and the income assessed vide earlier order passed u/s.143(3) having been accepted, the impugned reassessment order is not sustainable in law and thus requires to be quashed/vacated. [II] Addition on account of differential value of land while invoking the provisions of Section 43CA of the Act - Rs.1,59,58,994/-

The appellant states that since the AO having made the same addition as made in the original order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act and having accepted