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
2,53,89,129/- and accordingly declared the income of Rs.2,57,40,889/- in the Revised Return of Income. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that the admitted additional income was due to the investigations carried out by the Department u/s. 133A of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 and it is not a voluntary offer
