The assessment must adhere to principles of natural justice; profit estimations require books of accounts to be rejected with valid reasons.

आदेश/ORDER

PER. MANJUNATHA G., A.M:

These four appeals filed by the assessee are directed against separate, but, identical orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi all dated 19.02.2024, 23.02.2024, 21.02.2024 and 20.02.2024, pertaining to A.Y.2017-18 and 2018-19. Since the facts are identical and the issues are common, for the sake of convenience, the appeals filed by the appellant are heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order.

2. The assessee has raised more or less common grounds of appeal for both the assessment years. Therefore, grounds of appeal filed for the A.Y.2017-18 in ITA No.328/Hyd/2024 are reproduced as under :

1. The order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act dated 12.02.2024 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant.

2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of assessment passed by the AO on 29.12.2019 without actually appreciating the facts of the case and submissions made by the assessee, which is against the provisions of law and principles of natural justice.

3. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant has reasonable cause for non- compliance to notice issued during the assessment proceedings and that completing the assessment by the AO by applying the provisions of Section 144 of the Act is not correct, which is liable to be quashed.

4. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have quashed the assessment made u/s 144 of the Act and ought to have appreciated the fact that when the assessment itself is invalid, the additions made in such assessment are invalid and are liable to be deleted.

5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.27,70,67,789/- made towards ad-hoc 10% of sale of services, which is purely based on surmised and assumptions.

6. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant has reasonable cause for non- compliance and that estimating the profit at a higher profit percentage is not correct in law.

7. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition f Rs.27,70,67,789/- by holding that the AO has a rationale for estimating the profit @10%.

8. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in observing that gross profit margin of jewellery stores was 43.5% in 2013 without considering the recent comparables and ought to have appreciated that the rates of profits in similar line of business stands between net profit of 2-3% and estimating the profit @10% is on the higher side and bad in law.

9. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that Assessing Officer ought to have taken into account both purchases and the turnover as true as admitted by assessee and ought to have worked out the business results.

10. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the Act for Rs.2,25,17,243/- towards loans and advances taken by the assessee, which is against the provisions of the Act.

11. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that no other additions can be made when estimation of profit is done by the AO and that the additions made u/s 68 and 69A of the Act are against the provisions of the Act.

12. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the loan of Rs.2,25,17,243/- has been taken through proper banking channel and that the assessee has proved the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction.

13. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.10,83,99,500/- made u/s 69A towards cash deposits in the bank account during the FY 2016-17, without considering the facts of the case and submissions made by the assessee.

14. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition