9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set aside this issue to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The ld. First Appellate Authority will take up the proceedings preferably after ascertaining of outcome of the settlement petitions. In case the outcome is not brought to the notice of ld. First Appellate Authority, within reasonable period, then the ld. First Appellate Authority will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. As far as other two issues are concerned, both the parties have conceded that these issues may also be restored to the file of the ld. First Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication, because, the addition u/s.68 has a link with Settlement Commission proceedings. The books were seized by the DRI, therefore, relevant material was not produced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndependent to each other. The assessee craves to add, amend, alter, substitute and modify its grounds. 4. The ground nos.3, 4 and 5 are only substantial ground. They read as under: 3. On facts and circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition u/s.68 of the Act for unexplained partners capital of ₹ 1,98,50,000/- as made by the ITO in the hands of the appellant fir, which is not only factually erroneous but also bad-in-law and hence, needs to be deleted. 4. On facts and circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in restricting the addition of ₹ 84,00,000/- to ₹ 48,00,000/- as made by the ITO, u/s.68 of the Act, alleging unexplained unsecured loans, which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for different assessment years. The ld. DDIT(Inv) transmitted information to the AO of the assessee that it is one of the beneficiaries of introduction of bogus capital in the year under assessment. The ld. AO has reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. It revealed to the AO that partners have introduced capital in the following manner: a) Mohanbhai D Patel : Rs.74,92,000/- b) Kiritbhai M. Patel : Rs.59,04,000/- c) Priyangaben A. Patel : Rs.64,54,000/- Total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has filed confirmation, but such confirmation has been rejected by the CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee sought to place on record the confirmation by way of additional evidence. He further contended that partners have approached Hon ble Settlement Commission by way of application under section 245C. The Hon ble Settlement Commission has admitted the petition of Kiritbhai M. Patel and rejected the petitions of other two partners. Both the partners have challenged the order of the ld.Settlement Commission by way of writ petition in the Hon ble High Court. The Hon ble Bombay High Court has admitted the petitions and also stayed the abatement of petitions before the Settlement Commission. If the issue is being settled under the petitions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the present case. 14. As far as the addition on account of unsecured loan of ₹ 84 lakhs is concerned, it emerges out from the record that the assessee has opened 150 fictitious bank accounts. The ld. AO has noticed the names of 10 persons, against whom, cash credits are appearing. The AO has directed the assessee to produce these entities before him and file confirmation. The assessee contended that the books of accounts have been seized by the DRI, therefore, it is not possible to submit requisite details. The ld. AO has made addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 15. On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has partly deleted the addition. 16. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that confirmations filed by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in accordance with law. 20. As far as other two issues are concerned, both the parties have conceded that these issues may also be restored to the file of the ld. First Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication, because, the addition u/s.68 has a link with Settlement Commission proceedings. The books were seized by the DRI, therefore, relevant material was not produced. As far as ad hoc addition is concerned, we find that the assessee has debited following expenses: Millgin Expenses : 2,02,700 Machinery Repairs : 52,295 Power Expenses : 9,16,481 Factory Expens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
