9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e find force in the assessee’s counsel version that because this unit is covered under Excise Act therefore to claim MODVAT as per excise law in the stock transfer. It segregated excise duty and CST in separate head in their books of account. We also find that a notice dated 4.4.2008 u/s 154/155 of I.T. Act was received for clarification of sales assessment year 2004-05 including stock transfer shown in the Balance Sheet and Profit & Losses Account filed from Delhi to branch Pondicherry, which contain element of stock transfer from Delhi to branch Pondicherry and vice- versa and in response thereto the assessee has filed the reply of the notice on 30.4.2008 explaining the detail of sale which contain detail element of transfer of stock and credited in the books of accounts which has been accepted by the Department and no further query was asked by the AO and sent the notice u/s. 147 on account of income escaping assessment when there is no reason to believe and concealment of fact i.e. Sales and Stock transfer it mere change of opinion after the original assessment completed. We find that all the facts were duly discussed and verified, hence, there is no new facts or concealmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the assessee had filed all details of sales, stock transfer and reconciliation of ₹ 29,65,101/- before the AO and the same have been accepted in original assessment proceedings as well as proceedings u/s 154 of the Act. 9. That the CIT (A) has in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of ₹ 29,65,101/- since it is clearly explainable and there is no provision under the law to tax the same. 10.That the explanations given, evidence produced, material placed and available on record has not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and the same do not justify the additions/allowances made. In any case the additions upheld by the CIT(A) are highly excessive. 11. That the various observations made by the CIT(A) and the AO are illegal, bad in law and factually incorrect and based on surmises and conjectures. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the original return was filed on 1.11.,2014 declaring income of ₹ 3,53,850/-. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) at an income of ₹ 4,55,170/- on 28.12.2006. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts were dully discussed and verified there is no new facts or concealment of any facts as per u/s 147, there must be reason to believe the income has chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. He stated that the AO has wrongly added of ₹ 29,65,101/-. He further stated that the reassessment proceeding is time bar and assessment cannot be reopen due to mere change of opinion after the assessment, the addition of ₹ 29,65,101/- has wrongly been made, which was dully explained and duly credit in books of alc and there is no concealment. He stated that the Notice u/s. 148 has been issued to the assessee after recording the reasons u/s. 147 of the I.T. Act without any tangible material. Therefore, he prayed that reassessment framed may be quashed. In support of his contention he relied upon the following case laws:- a) Order dated 3.11.20087 in the case of M/s Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company vs. CIT passed in WP(C) No. 4074/2007 (Delhi High Court) 308 ITR 38 b) Order dated 14.8.2014 in the case of Madhukar Khosla vs. ACIT passed in CWP(C), CM No. 2744/2014 and 2745/2014 (Delhi High Court). c) ITAT, SMC-2, Delhi Bench decision dated 17.11.2015 passed in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal assessment order. The detail chart of sale with stock transfer along with consolidate Audit balance sheet of Company head office Delhi and branch office / factory Pondicherry, which was dully filed during the assessment proceeding. The sale and stock transfer declare in the detail chart were dully verified from the Audit balance sheet of consolidated as well as individual of the company that is Head Office Delhi and branch office / factory Pondicherry. Even During the original assessment proceeding it was duly explained the difference in the stock transfer to branch and vice-versa and credited in the books of accounts There was difference of stock transfer to branch in the books of branch office which has shown credited their stock less by ₹ 29,65,101/-. We find force in the assessee s counsel version that because this unit is covered under Excise Act therefore to claim MODVAT as per excise law in the stock transfer. It segregated excise duty and CST in separate head in their books of account. We also find that a notice dated 4.4.2008 u/s 154/155 of I.T. Act was received for clarification of sales assessment year 2004-05 including stock transfer shown in the Balance Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
