9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (10) TMI 329 - AT - Income TaxActivity related to Bardana and advances to farmers and charging of interest - Held that - The pages of Paper Book referred by the assessee at the time of hearing requires necessary reconciliation. It has also been noticed that there is no consolidated reconciliation on record based on which it can be said that the transaction relating to Bardana and interest has been the entries for amounts which were considered for calculation of peak amount. In the absence of complete reconciliation of details in this regard that the transaction relating to Bardana and interest were included in the consolidated cash book on which basis a peak amount has been calculated. In the absence of complete facts, the issue pertaining to Bardana and interest cannot be decided at this stage the order of CIT(A) is not in accordance with section 250(6) & send back to decide the issue afresh - in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
Issues:
1. Addition of Rs.31,91,414 on alleged undisclosed investment in Bardana 2. Addition of Rs.3,47,272 on alleged unaccounted interest received on Farmers advances Analysis: 1. The appeal was against an order confirming an addition of Rs.31,91,414 on undisclosed investment in Bardana. During assessment, it was noted that the assessee had a share in Bardana investment made by a group concern. The AO added 40.7% of the investment as undisclosed. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, stating that the investment could not be bifurcated among cold storages and upheld the AO's decision. The Tribunal found the facts similar to another case and sent it back to the CIT(A) for reevaluation, as the order lacked necessary reconciliation and detailed analysis. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision. 2. The second issue involved an addition of Rs.3,47,272 on unaccounted interest received on Farmers advances. The AO apportioned the interest amount among cold storages, including the appellant's share. The CIT(A) affirmed the addition based on similar reasoning as the first issue. However, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the order and sent the case back to the CIT(A) for a reevaluation in accordance with the law. The Tribunal directed a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity for both parties to present their arguments. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, indicating a procedural victory for the appellant without altering the substantive tax liabilities.
|
