9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined cash credit. (vii) The appellant craves liberty to raise additional ground and to modify/ amend the ground of appeal at the time of hearing.'' 3. The ground raised by the assessee in his C.O. is as under:- ''1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not canceling the entire assessment order as the addition of Rs. 1,79,666/- in transportation charges was deleted which was the basic and only reason for issue of notice u/s 148, in view of binding judgement of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Ram Singh 306 ITR 343.'' 4. None appeared for the assessee - respondent on the date of hearing. The written submissions are filed by the ld. AR of the assessee. Hence, the appeal of the Department and the C.O. of the assessee are decided on the basis of written submissions filed by the assessee and after hearing the ld. DR as well as perusing the materials available on record. 5. Since the assessee has challenged the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act, therefore, they are decided first. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a dealer of kerosene of Indian Oil Corporation and is also transporting kerosene for Indian Oil Corporation. The assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's case . In the case of CIT vs. Shri Ram Singh (supra), the AO himself did not make addition in respect of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. However, in this case, the AO made additions which were deleted by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR relied on the ld. CIT(A)'s order to hold that the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act are valid in law. 9. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act by following observations. ''5.2 Argument of the appellant is not acceptable. In view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (291 ITR 500), the only requirement for issue of notice u/s 148 is prima facie reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. I therefore, hold that in this case AO was justified in issuing notice u/s 148. The reassessment proceedings are therefore, valid. Ground No. 1 & 2 are thus dismissed.'' 10. We have perused the assessee's written submission, materials available on record and heard the arguments of the ld. DR. In our considered view, there is no merit in the objections raised by the assessee inasmuch as the issue on which notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and the additions in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shed alongwith the return. In the absence of any specific material brought on record by AO and in view of decision of Hon'ble Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog, I hold that trading addition of Rs. 1,69,845/- is not justified and the same is directed to be deleted. Ground No. 5 & 6 are thus allowed.'' 15. The ld. DR contends that the when assessee was not able to produce the books of account then it cannot be ensured that as to how the new set of computerized books of account was produced. If the assessee had lost the books of account and computer back up was available then the same should have been produced before the AO. The assessee ingenuously did not produce the so called computerized books of account before the AO and the ld. CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence by following observations. ''4.1 From the assessment order it is found that in ths case copy of valuation report of DVO was provided to the appellant on 19-12-2008 and he was asked to furnish his objections before 23-12-2008. Moreover, the case was getting time barred on 31-12-2008, so the AO completed the assessment on 30-12-2008. Similarly books of accounts of M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 7 is thus allowed. 18. The ground no. 3 of the Revenue is regarding hotel business wherein the ld. CIT(A) has observed as under:- ''10.3 AO has made this addition without making any inquiry and without brining any specific material on record. Therefore, addition of Rs. 1,46,401/- is not justified and the same is directed to be deleted. Ground No. 8 is thus allowed. 19. The Ground No. 4 of the Revenue is regarding unexplained investment in construction of hotel building wherein the ld. CIT(A) has observed as under:- ''11.4 It has been held by Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur and Jodhpur Benches in various cases and Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court that for estimating cost of construction, CPWD rates are to be scaled down by 20%. Further deduction of 10% to 12.5% is to be allowed on account of self supervision. In this case if deduction of 20% on account of difference of rates between CPWD and PWD and further deduction of 10% is allowed for self supervision, then the remaining difference is negligible. Moreover, DVO has rejected report of registered valuer without pointing out any specific defects in the method of valuation adopted by him. The hotel is situated in Sawai Madhopur a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
