9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition deleted - ITA No. 5392/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 22-11-2013 - SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI J.S. REDDY For the Appellant : Shri Prakash Yadav Adv. For the Respondent : Dr. Sudha Kumari CIT (DR) O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M : This is assessee s appeal against CIT(A) s order dated 24-8-2012 relating to A.Y. 2006-07. Following grounds are raised: 1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in upholding the order of assessment framed u/s 153C/143(3) of the Act without granting any fair, meaningful and, proper opportunity to the appellant company. 1.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) while disposing of appeal expartee has failed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that addition made was not supported by any material found as a result of search and as such addition made and sustained is perse without jurisdiction and hence unsustainable. 3.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that such creditors could not be brought to tax as income of the appellant uls 68 of the Act in light of the facts and evidence on record and statutory provisions of law. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest under section 2348 of the Act which is not leviable on the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant company. 2. At the h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,79,500/- The assessee was provided several opportunities to explain the above discrepancy and genuineness of the transactions by furnishing their complete address and PAN but the assessee failed to explain the genuineness of the above transactions. Since, the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the above transactions, the amount of ₹ 63,79,500/- was added to the income of the assessee company for the year u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, the income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 63,95,910/-. The above additions/ disallowances are also retailed in the current assessment proceedings on the reasoning given in the earlier assessment order dated 30-12-2008 pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ITAT. 3.3. In these facts this assessment was abated in terms of proviso to Section 153A. Search and seizure operations were carried out in Rajdarbar group of cases. Consequent thereto notice u/s 153C was issued on the assessee on 2-8-2010. It is further pleaded that no incriminating material was found in respect of the assessee and the information received by him was demonstrated by the assessee to be already incorporated in the completed assessment. The assessing officer has disallowed the expenses qua filing fee and creditors which are already part of 143(3) proceedings. Reliance is placed on the Hon ble Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Anil Bhatia 211 ITR 453 (Del); and ITAT Mumbai (Special Bench) in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
