TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sister concerns stands explained - No contrary evidence has been produced by the revenue to suggest that what has been held by CIT (A) is contrary to the facts – Decided against revenue - Income Tax Appeal No. 510/2012 - - - Dated:- 16-9-2014 - Sanjiv Khanna And V. Kameswar Rao,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Nemo. ORDER Sanjiv Khanna, J. (Oral): The matter was adjourned to enable the counsel for the appellant-Revenue to ascertain the factual matrix and produce original records, which have been produced. 2. The Assessment Year in question is 2006-07 and the respondent-assessee had filed return declaring loss of ₹ 3,67,316/- on 31st March, 2007. 3. The best judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn for the Assessment Year 2007-08 on 12th November, 2007 indicating a different or new address. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) observed that the Assessing Officer should have verified the address from new return in view of the factual matrix, but he did not do so and even subsequent notices dated 31st January, 2008 and 9th July, 2008 were sent on the wrong or earlier address. Subsequently, notice dated 24th September, 2008 was sent for appearance on 29th September, 2008 by speed post, but the said notice could not be served on the respondent-assessee. However, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not annul the assessment on this ground, but referred to the documents placed on record and the contention of the respondent-assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vance received of ₹ 2 crores from M/s Amazing Realter Limited. As noticed above, the original file has been produced before us. It is stated by the counsel for the Revenue that the agreement between the respondent-assessee and Amazing Realter Limited is not on record. What is available on record is letter dated 4th November, 2009 written by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to the ITO, Ward 2(4). The said letter refers to the manner in which the service was effected without ascertaining the proper address of the respondent-assessee. The Assessing Officer was required to submit a remand report verifying the authenticity of facts on merits stated by the respondent-assessee. The Assessing Officer was required to verify the books o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its. It is silent on the said aspect. The remand report dated 24th June, 2010 also refers to reminder Nos. 286 dated 27th January, 2010 and 17 dated 19th April, 2010 enclosing therewith an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The said letters dated 27th January, 2010 and 19th April, 2010 are not available in the records though these letters must have been written by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to the Assessing Officer as they have been mentioned by the Assessing Officer in his remand report dated 24th June, 2010. Copy of the application under Rule 46A of the Rules is also not available on record and we do not know what documents and particulars were filed. 8. Revenue was the appellant before the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment is misconceived. So far as it relates to merits, we found that the details which have been provided in the above part of this order clearly reveal that the source of the advance made by the assessee to its sister concerns is advance received against sale of land and thus investment made by the assessee with its sister concerns stands explained. No contrary evidence has been produced by the revenue to suggest that what has been held by learned CIT (A) is contrary to the facts. Therefore, we see no justification in interfering with the findings recorded by the learned CIT (A) that addition on merit was not sustainable. Therefore, we decline to interfere and the second ground raised by the revenue is also dismissed. 9. In view of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|