9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N GARG, J.M. These three appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) for AYs 1994-95, 1997-98 and 1998-99. As the main grounds in these appeals are on similar issues, therefore, for the sake of convenience and proper adjudication, we are deciding them by this common order. 2. The grounds taken in all three appeals read as under:- ITA No.2049/D/2010 1. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of Rs.14,96,996/- on account of commission income. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 62,345/- being advance from Pittie Cement India Ltd. ITA No.2050/D/2010 1. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of Rs.6,27,259/- on account of commission inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs.269664/-) out of expenses debited to profit and loss account. 7. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming an addition of Rs.79,000/- on account of shareholders fund. 3. The facts in brief for AY 1994-95 are that the CIT(A) confirmed the additions on account of commission income, advance from Rottie Cement India Ltd. made by the Assessing Officer. For A.Y. 1997-98, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions on account of commission income, income disclosed in return and sundry creditors and again for A.Y. 1998-99. The CIT(A) confirmed the additions on account of difference in Gross Profits on the basis of comparison in the G.P. rate of the company, disallowance of expenses debited to profit and loss account and on account of shareh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act, the aforesaid directions of the ITAT could not be complied with. In nutshell, position remains the same as on 1.6.2007, when the ITAT issued their aforesaid directions. Since the Settlement Commission is yet to pass their final order u/s 245D(4) of the Act, we have no alternative but to vacate the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and reiterate the directions in order dated 1.6.2007 in IT(SS)A No. 381/Del/2003. With these observations, ground nos. 1 to 5 in the appeal are disposed of. 5. We also observe that in the last part of para 2 of the said judgment, the ITAT Bench also took note of judgment of ITAT Delhi in the case of ACIT vs M/s Hemkund Metals Pvt. Ltd. in IT(SS)A No. 381/Del/2003 and relevant para is also being reproduced as u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he income computed by Settlement Commission finally also includes the aforesaid fixed deposit of Rs.19 lacs (either by way of source or by way of application thereto). If so found, no further addition need to be made in the hands of the assessee herein. However, if there is no such finding by Settlement Commission and if the source of Rs.19 lacs remains unexplained, the same can be assessed in the hands of assessee herein. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. It is also made clear that the assessee shall furnish copy of final order of Settlement Commission passed u/s 245D(4) and also demonstrate that the source of the fixed deposit is assessed to tax in the case of Shri Suresh Gupta so as to claim relief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
