9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the authorities below. We have also gone through the affidavit filed before the ld. CIT(A). In our considered opinion the ld. CIT(A) should not have rubbished the affidavit without going into the merits. Therefore in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore this issue to the files of the A.O. The A.O is directed to decide the issue afresh in the light of the contents of the affidavits. Keeping in mind, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parekh & Company [1956 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court]. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of depreciation - Held that:- Undisputedly the assessee claimed depreciation which was not permissible during the period in which the delivery vans were purchased. However, in our considered opinion a mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. We draw support from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ]. - Decided in favour of assessee - IT(SS)A. Nos: 115 to 120/AHD/2011 & 788/AHD/10, IT(SS)A. Nos: 259 & 260/AH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 of the Act unless some incriminating material is found at the time of search. This proposition is well settled by the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay given in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics in Income Tax Appeal No. 1969 of 2013 and Continental Warehousing Corporation in Income Tax Appeal No. 523 of 2013 and also in the case of Murli Agro Products. The relevant portion of the decision in the case of Continental Warehousing (supra) reads as under:- Once it is held that the assessment has attained finality, then the AO while passing the independent assessment order u/s. 153A r.w. s 143(3) of the I.T. Act could not have disturbed the assessment/reassessment order which has attained finality, unless the materials gathered in the course of the proceedings u/s. 153A of the Income Tax Act establish that the reliefs granted under the finalized assessment/reassessment were contrary to the facts unearthed during the course of 153A proceedings. If there is nothing on record to suggest that any material was unearthed during the search or during the 153A proceedings, the AO while passing order u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) cannot disturb the assessment order. 10.2. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are the partners of partnership firm of M/s. J.P. Marketing, namely Shri Champaklal Kasat, Shri Rajesh Kasat and Shri Dinesh Kasat. As per this agreement Shri Champaklal Kasat would pay ₹ 10 lacs to Shri Dinesh Kasat and Shri Rajesh Kasat, for surrendering their interest in the firm. This payment was in addition to the amount payable by cheque. The assessee was asked to explain why the addition should not be made for the receipt of ₹ 5 lacs. The assessee vehemently stated that no such transaction has ever taken place. This explanation of the assessee did not find favour with the A.O who made the addition of ₹ 5 lacs as business income of the assessee. Assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A) but without any success. 7. Before us the counsel for the Assessee reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities. It is the say of the counsel that the additions have been made on the basis of a loose paper found at the time of search, the said loose paper was found from the possession of Shri Champaklal Kasat and not from the possession of the Assessee. Except for this the Revenue has no documentary evidence to make the addition. Per contra, the ld. D.R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out going into the merits. Therefore in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore this issue to the files of the A.O. The A.O is directed to decide the issue afresh in the light of the contents of the affidavits. Keeping in mind, the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parekh Company 30 ITR 181. This ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 12. (2) IT(SS)A No. 221/Ahd/2011. The Assessee is aggrieved by the addition of ₹ 5 lacs treated as unaccounted cash receipt on surrender of interest in M/s. J.P. Marketing. This issue has been decided by us in ITA NO. 116/Ahd/2011 qua ground no. 3 of that appeal. For our detailed discussion therein and for similar reasons, the addition of ₹ 5 lacs is deleted. 13. (3) IT(SS)A No. 227/Ahd/2011 Rachana D. Kasat for A.Y. 2007-08. The counsel did not press this appeal and therefore the same is dismissed as not pressed. 14. (4) IT(SS)A No. 247/Ahd/2011 Jagat Champaklal Kasat. The sole grievance relates to the addition of ₹ 4,59,000/-.This issue has been elaborately discussed and considered by us, while deciding the common issues. For similar reasons, we direct the A.O to del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
