9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortunity to the A.O. before admitting the additional evidence submitted by the assessee under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have sustained the treatment of income receivable from letting out of the property as income from other sources. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee has been receiving lease rent for several years from 2004-05 to 2009-10." 2. Briefly stated, assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of steel products such as steel bars and MS Ingots. Search and seizure proceedings have taken place on 29.01.2009 along with other group cases. Consequent to that proceedings under section 153A were initiated and assessee has filed NIL incomes in all the years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us proceedings under section 147 or under section 153A. The A.O. however, was of the view that the income cannot be treated as business income and excluded the receipts received from the business income and treated it under the head other sources. However, while considering the income under the head "Other Sources", A.O. has not allowed any expenditure and the gross receipts were assessed as such in the impugned assessment years. 2.2 Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case and case law on the issue held that action of the A.O. is not correct and directed the A.O. to treat the same as income from business only. His order in para 4.8 is as under : "4.8. Coming to the facts of the case, the appellant company is into the business o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cases are posted earlier, none appeared and notices were sent for service through D.R. at least 3 occations earlier. There was no information on record that the notices were served by the Revenue. Therefore, the cases were heard exparte assessee and decided after hearing the learned D.R. 4. After considering the contentions of the learned D.R. and examining the facts of the case, we agree with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). There is no merit in the Revenue contention as the action of the A.O. in excluding income from business and assessing the same under the head "Other Sources" is not proper. Even if for the sake of argument, the income is to be treated as income from other sources, A.O. is duty bound to allow the relevant expenditure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an amount of Rs.85,73,857/- as income from other sources stated to be share application money received treated as income. This addition was in fact made in the original proceedings under section 143(3) concluded earlier vide order dated 31.12.2007 on which, separate appeals were filed. Since the matters were pending in appeal, the assessment has not been abated. However, A.O. in the present proceedings also added the same amount. Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issue as this issue arises in earlier proceedings which are pending for adjudication separately. Assessee also in the course of written submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) contended that these matters were pending separately and therefore, they did not raise the issue in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
