INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), PANAJI vs. SHRI LALJI PURUSHOTTAM BABHOYYA PATEL, ALTINHO
In the result, the appeal is allowed
ITA 361/PAN/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Aug 2022AY 2006-07
Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Vs. Shri Lalji Purshottam Dabhoyya Ward 1(1), Patel, Panaji, Hill View, Althinho, Goa. Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Pan: Abapd1169Q Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Lalji Purshottam Vs. Acit, Dabhoyya Patel, Circle -1(1), Hill View, Althinho, Panaji, Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Goa. Pan: Abapd1169Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Panaji-1, Dated 31.05.2018 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita Nos.361 & 339/Pan/2018 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor Carrying On The Business At Panaji, Goa. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring The Total Income At Rs.9,02,333/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making The Following Additions:- I) Unexplained Cash Credit - Rs.27,33,000.00 Ii) Unconfirmed Creditors - Rs. 6,30,000.00 Iii) Depreciation Disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00
For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 45
271(1)(c) of the Act may kindly be confirmed, whereas the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention towards the relevant operative paras of the first appellate order and submitted that the AO failed to bring out the nature of concealment by the appellant either in the assessment order or in the penalty order, therefore, the ld.CIT
