9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year under consideration either in the books of the assessee or in the books of the partnership firm, viz., M/s BLK Furnishers and Contractors - If there is no fresh credit during the year either in the assessee’s books or in the books of the firm taken over by the assessee, the addition for the unexplained credit cannot be made in the hands of the assessee in the assessment year - if there is a fresh credit, then the Assessing Officer will certainly examine the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 – Decided in favour of Assessee. Disallowance of expenses on wages – Held that:- As decided in assessee’s own case for the previous assessment year, it has been held that, the disallowance has been set aside – thus, by followin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9, when the assessment was getting barred by limitation. The submission of the AR that there were more than 200 cases in the group and hence compliance was in parts - is hardly an explanation, much less a justifiable one, for not complying with the requirements specified by the AO. At the same time, some fault should also lie at the door of the AO, who started the proceedings after 7 months from the date of filing the return u/s 153A. Moreover, the AO was not precluded from taking stern measures provided in the Act for non compliance by the assessee. It is noted that the impugned order discusses several instances of non compliance by the appellant, but is silent on the initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) that is specifically meant for cases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts and circumstances, the Asstt. for A.Y. 2005-06 remains un-abated on search which took place on 19.02.2008, hence, the Asstt. framed u/s. 153A can be only on the basis of and relating to the issues emanating from incriminating seized material and since, in the present case no incriminating material has been found relating to the addition of Rs.22,00,000/-, therefore, the examination of issue relating to addition of Rs.22,00,000/- and consequential addition of Rs.22,00,000/- is absolutely illegal, without jurisdiction and un-sustainable. 6. At the time of hearing before us, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that the CIT(A) has already allowed the relief on merits and, if the Revenue s appeal is dismissed, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ized material. Thus, the addition as per G.N.2 below, since, not emanating from seized material, cannot be made and is without jurisdiction. 2.1 That without prejudice, under the facts and circumstances, addition of Rs.6,30,000/- as unexplained cash creditors is absolutely illegal, unjustified and unsustainable in law as well as on merits. 2.2 That without prejudice, under the facts and circumstances, ld.CIT(A) has been wrong in holding in Para 8.3.4 that no application Under Rule 46A has been filed in support of claims made in appeal. The ld.CIT(A) during the courser of hearing on 07.02.2013 refused to accept applicable under Rule 46A and directed to file the same at DAK counter, which had to be filed at DAK counter on 07.02.2013. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it can be made in the hands of the assessee in the year under consideration. 11. Learned DR submitted that these facts stated by the learned counsel would require verification and, therefore, either the addition should be sustained or the matter may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer. 12. After considering the arguments of both the sides and perusing the material placed before us, we are of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if this issue is set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer. We order accordingly and direct the Assessing Officer to verify whether there is any credit during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year under consideration either in the books of the assessee or in the bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue s appeal. ITA No.2724/Del/2013 - Revenue s appeal for AY 2009-10 :- 15. The only ground raised by the Revenue in this appeal reads as under:- That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of expenses of wages. 16. At the time of hearing before us, both the sides fairly admitted that this ground is identical to the ground raised by the Revenue in its appeal for AY 2006-07 2008-09. In this year also, adhoc disallowance was made without any basis and learned CIT(A), with identical observations, deleted the disallowance. Since we have already considered the identical issue in assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
