9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 746X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Shri Suresh Gupta (Director) in his personal capacity. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in finding that in none of the seven grounds of the appeal taken by the appellant, relief on account of any matter connected with the settlement application of the said Shri Suresh Gupta has been sought. Without appreciating the fact that the proceedings before the Assessing Officer itself were subjected to final order of settlement Commission passed u/s 245D(4) in the case of Shri Suresh Gupta, the Director. 4. It is contended that the addition of ₹ 19,00,000/- is bad in law since the same has been considered on substantive basis both in the hands of the appellant company and Shri Suresh Gupta in orders passed u/s 158BC of the Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer[AO in short] with the following directions:- We have considered rival submissions. From the order of Settlement Commission in the case of Suresh Kumar Gupta dated 11.6.2001 u/s 245D(1),it is merely an order for admitting a petition filed by Shri Suresh Gupta for settlement of his case. The total income declared by Shri Suresh Gupta is `Rs.75 lacs. As per page 3 of the said order of Settlement Commission, the total amount of cash seized from the residence of Shri Suresh Gupta and various other companies including the assessee herein exceeded ₹ 82.8 lacs. It is to be noted that the aforesaid sum of 82.8 lacs do not include the value of fixed deposit of ₹ 19 lacs in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uance to aforesaid directions of the ITAT, the AO requested the assessee to submit a copy of final order of the Settlement Commission. However, the assessee did not submit and accordingly, an addition of ₹ 19,00,000/- was reiterated, resulting in assessment of undisclosed income of ₹ 1,31,37,540/-. 3. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the findings of the AO, the assessee having failed to submit a copy of the final order of the Settlement Commission as directed by the ITAT vide their aforesaid order dated 1.6.2007. 4. The assessee is now in appeal against the aforesaid findings of learned CIT(A). The learned AR on behalf of the assessee contended that the Settlement Commission is yet to pass the final order, even though orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
