9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assessing Officer to arrive at proper conclusion. We, accordingly, set aside the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for verification of Bank accounts to determine the income arising from the receipts credited in the impugned Bank ac counts. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - I. T. A. No. 369/KOL/ 2015 - - - Dated:- 13-8-2015 - Shri S. V. Mehrotra and Shri Mahavir Singh, JJ. For The Assessee : Shri K. M. Roy, FCA, For The Department : Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. D. R. ORDER Per S. V. Mehrotra: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata dated 30.01.2015 for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. Brief fact s of the case are that the assesese, a partnership fi rm, was in the business of customs clearing and forwarding agency on behalf of importers and exporters. It had filed it s return of income declaring loss of ₹ 85,578/-. The assessee had claimed credit of TDS of ₹ 2,369/-. From the Profit Loss Account, the Assessing Officer noticed that the total turnover of the business of the firm for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese letters have been reproduced in the assessment order. From these letters, the Assessing Officer concluded that the amount s received were not disclosed by the fi rm in it s return of income and, accordingly, he made the addi tion of ₹ 2,30,35,767.10, after excluding the receipt s on account of Ruchi Soya Industries ltd. of ₹ 66,805/- and ₹ 1,19,218/- on account of Mcleod Russel India Limited totalling to ₹ 1,86,023/-. 4. Before the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee primarily contested the addition being made in its hand, though the accounts were in the name of Mr. Manish Chatwani. The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee s appeal. 5. Being aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the following effective grounds of appeal:- l. For that the Appellate Order dated 30.0l.2015 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is arbitrary, erroneous, unreasonable, unlawful, and perverse and the order was passed without application of mind. 2. For that the Learned the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-9, Kolkata has arbitrarily and baselessly completed the appellate order and dismissed the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Income Tax Act shall be the responsibility of Shri Manish K Chatani. The Photocopy of the said documents were produced before the Appellate Authority but the Appellate Authority did not consider them. The Appellate Authority confirmed the undisclosed receipt of ₹ 2,31,54,644 as income in the hands of the Appellant which is unjust. 7. The imposition of interest u/s 234A, 2348 234C of Income Tax Act is not applicable as there is no Tax liability on the part of your appellant. 8. For that there is no concealment on the part of your appellant. As such initiation of penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) is bad in law. 9. For that the Appellate Authority did not give proper opportunity to the Appellant of being heard before passing the Appellate Order. 6. The assessee has al so taken the following additional ground of appeal:- 1. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of ₹ 2,31,54,644/- by the Asse ssing Officer do not belong to the appellant and the same should be added in the hands of Mr. Manish K. Chatwani who is assessed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward 22(3) -2, Mumbai in view of the evidences produced by the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d both the bank Accounts were useddepositing the receipts of ₹ 2,31 ,54,644.00. Shri Manish Kishorlal Chatwani admitted that he acted and carried out the business without knowledge of Appellant and in this respect, a written submission signed by Shri Manish K Chatawani was submitted before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-9 and whereas the Appellate authority did not consider while passing the Appellate Order which is unwarranted and against the facts of the case. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also referred to the affidavit of Shri Manish K. Chatwani placed in assessee s paper book at page 47 wherein, according to ld. Counsel for the assessee admitted that this amount belongs to him. The copy of affidavit is enclosed at pages 47 and 48 of assessee s paper book. 4. We have gone through the affidavit of Shri Manish K. Chatwani dated 28.06.2013. We are not sure about the authenticity of the copy of this affidavit. Hence, this affidavit needs verification. Accordingly, Ld. DR was asked to verify this affidavit or the authenticity of this affidavit. The Ld. Sr. DR is also asked to send this affidavit to ITO, Ward 22(3)2, Mumbai and he can call for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
