9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this issue after considering the order of the CIT(A) passed in original assessment, wherein CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance on the basis of the report submitted to him. As CIT(A) has examined all the aspects of the matter, therefore, no reason to interfere arises. In favour of assessee. Addition on account of telephone expenses - 1/4th disallowed - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Considering the objection of the AO that the assessee has not maintained any log book for telephone calls so as to identify the personal nature of the calls. It is possible that office telephone can be used for personal purposes. CIT(A) has not taken into account this fact, and therefore the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is set aside, and the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment order back to the file of AO to be passed after passing of the order consequent to the Settlement Commission Order about the disputed additions. It was ordered by the Hon. Tribunal that the limitation shall start accordingly, after such order is passed. The AO further stated that the Hon'ble Settlement commission vide its order dated 10/01/2008 in the case of Girish Ruparel has ordered that the proceeding before the commission abated in accordance with the provisions of section 245HA. The Hon'ble Settlement Commission ordered that from the reports received from the field authorities, it is found that the applicants have not paid the taxes, etc. as required under section 245D(2D). It therefore ordered that the proceedings before the B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned counsel for the assessee, Shri S.N.Divetia submitted that no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee, since Shri Girish Ruparel on affidavit stated that an amount of Rs.28.45 lakhs does not belong to the assessee. He submitted that the amount cannot be taxed twice in the hands of two different persons. 5. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material available on record, and the orders of the authorities below. We find that the learned CIT(A) has decided this issue in para 3.3 as under: "3.3 I have considered the submission made by the appellant and observation of the AO. I agree with the appellant. As is clear from the above, the appellant has denied having given any loan to Mr Girish Ruparel even at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record. We find that the AO has observed that the assessee has earned gross brokerage of Rs.42.94 lakhs, and out of this, an expenditure of sub-brokerage to the tune of Rs.22.94 lakhs has been claimed. He further obtained that the assessee did not furnish and confirmation in respect of the expenditure so debited and the assessee did not specify the nature of services rendered by the person to whom the sub-brokerage was paid. However, the CIT(A) has decided this issue after considering the order of the CIT(A) passed in original assessment, wherein ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance on the basis of the report submitted to him. We find that ld. CIT(A) has examined all the aspects of the matter, therefore, we do not find any reason to inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
