The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 5403 (Pune-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, PUNE BENCH

P.M. JAGTAP, V.P. & S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, J.M.

Sachin Prabhakar Bagad v. Asstt. CIT

ITA No. 34/PUN/2017

16 September, 2020

Against assessee.

Appellant by : Sanket Joshi

Respondents by : Alok Malviya

ORDER

S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.

This appeal by the assessee against the Order, dt. 17-11-2016 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-1, Nashik CIT (A) ) for assessment year 2013-14.

2. The assessee raised ground Nos. 1 to 4 questioning the action of Commissioner (Appeals) in confirming the addition of Rs. 65,00,000 on the account of errors and omissions in the facts the circumstances of the case.

3. The brief facts relating to the case on hand are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of builders and developers. A survey action was conducted in the business premises of assessee on 15-02-2013. The original return of income was filed declaring a total income of Rs. 1,25,77,230 on 30-09-2013. According to the assessing officer, the assessee declared additional income of Rs. 1,07,67,799 on the basis of notings made on loose papers during the survey action. The assessing officer was of the opinion that the assessee is not justified in offering an amount of Rs. 7,23,201 towards errors and omissions and balance amount of Rs. 65,00,000 (Rs. 72,32,201 - Rs. 7,32,201) should also been offered to tax in the return. Accordingly, the assessing officer determined total income of Rs. 1,91,30,536 vide its Order, dt. 12-2-2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of assessing officer. The relevant portion of Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced here-in-below for ready reference:

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT