9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts in this order are identical with decision of the Tribunal in A.Y. 1998-99 to 2003-04 and 2004-05, in assessee’s own case, therefore, we hold that AO was not entitled for extra period for completing assessment and assessment order passed on 29/9/2006 was barred by limitation. – Decided in favor of assessee. - I.T.A. No.3452/Mum/2008 - - - Dated:- 4-1-2012 - SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, JJ. Appellant by Shri M. Subramanian Shri P.K.B. Menon O R D E R Per RAJENDRA SINGH (AM) This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18/2/2008 of CIT (A) for the assessment year 2003-04. The assessee in this appeal has challenged the legal validity of the assessment order on the ground that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation for ordering special audit under section 142(2A) and therefore, AO was not entitled to extended period and assessment order was barred by limitation. 3. We first take up the legal ground relating to assessment being barred by limitation which is the basic ground having a bearing on other grounds of appeal. The ld. AR at the very outset pointed out that legal issue was covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case in assessment years 1998-99 to 2002-03 and assessment year 2004-05 in ITA No.3636 to 3640 3643/M/2008 in which under identical situation the assessment orders were quashed as barred by limitation. The assessee had raised an identical ground in these years also that AO was not justified in directing the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h income had been arrived. It was a simple case of estimation of income based on documents and statements furnished. Special auditors after charging fees of Rs.6.50 lacs had only reported that certain vouchers were self-made vouchers. 4.1 The AO had also made adhoc disallowance of various items of expenses. The AO had not even considered the accounts before special audit had been ordered only 30 days prior to time baring period with the intention of getting extended period. The AO had not given any opportunity of hearing to the assessee before ordering special audit. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the special audit was not legally valid. Reference was made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Vs. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
