9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee even query letter was issued by him on 01/6/2011 – AO completed this assessment because it was barred by limitation by 31st December, 2011without appreciating the fact of the case - CIT has provided reasonable opportunity of being heard and order was passed within time by the CIT under subsection (2) of Section 263 – thus, the order of the CIT is upheld – Decided against assessee. - I.T.A No. 320/JP/2014 - - - Dated:- 21-11-2014 - Shri R. P. Tolani And Shri T. R. Meena,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri P. V. Maheshwari For the Respondent : Shri Subhash Chandra ORDER Per: T. R. Meena, A. M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 24/03/2014 of the learned CIT, Kota for the A.Y. 2009-10. The effective grounds of appeal are as under:- 1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota have grossly erred in revising/reopening the assessment done U/s 143(3) by invoking Sec. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1956. 2. That the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Sec. 263 of the I.T. Act is invalid because the assessee was not provided proper opportunity of being heard further the order is also time barred, the same havin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue U/s 263 of the Act. He further relied upon the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Del.), Hon ble Madras High Court decision in the case of K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar and Anr. Vs. CIT 220 ITR 657, Hon ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Mukur Corporation 111 ITR 312 (Guj.), Tarajan Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 205 ITR 45, K. Varma Vs. ITO 44 ITD 331 (Ahmadabad Trib.), Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the cases of Rampyari Devi Sarogi Vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 and Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323. He further relied upon the decision in the case of Dawjee Dadabhoy Co. Vs. S.P. Jain (1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal.High Court), CIT Vs. T. Narayana Paid (1975) 98 ITR 422 (Karnataka High Court), CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108/71 (Bombay High Court), and decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh (1995) 215 ITR 81/79 Taxman 184, CIT Vs. Emery Stone Mfg. Co. 213 ITR 843 (Raj. High Court) and India Textiles Vs. CIT 157 ITR 112 (Madras) and concluded that the assessee had deposited PF late on employees contribution as per schedule at ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n debited as currency fluctuation, which is also not liable to be allowable U/s 37 of the Act. The learned CIT held that looking to the above fact, the learned Assessing Officer passed an order, which is found to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The learned Assessing Officer made assessment without proper inquiry/investigation as he cannot remain passive in the face of a return, which is apparently in order but calls for further inquiry. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the case, considered it fit to be set aside the assessment with a direction to the Assessing Officer to frame it de novo after making proper inquiry and verification of books of account and other records/documents and after following the directions given in this order. 3. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. The learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that notice has been issued U/s 263, the appellant submitted detailed reply raised on various issues by the learned CIT, Kota for P.F. and E.S.I.. It was claimed that payments were made before due date of return, which is allowable as per law by considering the various decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nders through telephone and letter not respond and not making any payment, therefore, amount was claimed as bad debts. There was credit in the assessee s account in the name of M/s Uttam Galva Steel Ltd. for the purposes of raw material but it cannot be adjusted the outstanding pending job work bill amount without consent of supplier due to terms and conditions of purchases. For which, the assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT 232 ITR 397 (SC). The assessee is a company and prepared its balance sheet as per the company law. As per the Accounting Standard AS-11, the effects of charges in foreign exchange rates, it requires to report in monetary items, therefore, the effect of change in currency rate given in account of M/s European Metal Recycling Ltd. UK and Hindaf Metal Mining (Y) Ltd.. the assessee submitted that all the above details were filed before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment U/s 143(3) of the Act and after considering all the details, the order passed U/s 143(3) as such to look into all these details again is change of opinion on the allowability is not allowed U/s 263 of the Act. It is the revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es i.e. revenue as well as appellant are silent whether these enclosures were furnished by the appellant before the Assessing Officer and considered these evidences before passing the order U/s 143(3) of the Act. It is true that the learned Assessing Officer made query as per following itemswise:- (3) Details of all bank accounts alongwith copy of statements. (9) Details of foreign currency loan shown at ₹ 1`,96,75,136/-. (10) Details of secured loan shown at ₹ 1,16,46,165/-. Please furnish details from whom the loan was obtained. (12) You have shown unsecured loan from banks at ₹ 19,92,071/-. (17) Details of bad debts claimed at ₹ 6,21,069/- (19) Details of interest paid and rate at a\which paid. (20) You have shown sundry debitors at ₹ 10,40,412/-. Please furnish details with copy of account over ₹ 50,000/-. (21) Details of loan and advances shown at ₹ 10,15,22,609/-. Please state whether any interest has been charged, if so the rate of interest charged. (22) You have shown sundry creditors at ₹ 27,45,16,219/-. Please furnish details with copy of account over ₹ 50,000/-. As held by the various courts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
