9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 71/PUN/2016 filed by the assessee, J.P Builders & Developers is against the order of CIT(A)-1, Nashik dated 01.12.2015 relating to assessment year 2004-05 against the order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short 'the Act') 2. These bunch of three appeals relating to connected assessee, were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 696/PUN/2015:- 1) On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the assessment completed pursuant to notice issued u/s 148 please be quashed being illegal and invalid. 2) On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the assessee had not filed return of income, issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, in the said para itself, the Assessing Officer acknowledges that the return of income was filed by the assessee on 23.03.2005. In response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee did not file any return of income but filed reply on 18.10.2007 and asked to know the reasons of re-opening of assessment. The assessee did not comply with the notice issued u/s 148 or 142(1) of the Act initially and later furnished information. 6. The proceedings under section 148 of the Act were initiated against the assessee. However, where the assessee had failed to furnish any return of income in response to the said notice issued under section 148 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer made inquiries from the assessee but no explanation on cash credits detected in the books of account was filed. The assessee explained that the cash deposit by him in the accounts had already been explained. However, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has failed to furnish the sources of the said cash and hence, addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- was made in the hands of the assessee. The said addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). Similarly, in the case of other partner, Shri Arun Chachad, addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- was made and the appeal against the same is pending before CIT(A). The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds of the assessee, as the said plot is purchased in the name of two persons. The Ld. AR for the assessee has fairly conceded that balance sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- is to be added in the hands of other partner, Shri Arun Chachad. In the said case, appeal is pending before the CIT(A). Accordingly, addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- is upheld in the hands of the assessee. Hence, the ground No. 2 raised by the assessee in appeal is dismissed. 11. The issue raised by the assessee in the ground No. 3 is against disallowance of transport charges. The assessee was engaged in the transport business and paid lorry hire charges of Rs. 62,12,254/-. Out of which sum of Rs. 60,14,354/- was cash payment made by the assessee. Since the assessee did not file details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al transport payments as against the disallowance made by the A.O at Rs. 4,52,866/- 2) On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik is not justified in confirming the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 22,353/- out of total expenses on vehicles and telephone as against the disallowance made by the A.O at Rs. 44,706/-. 3) The appellant craves for addition to; deletion, alteration, and modification change any of the above grounds of appeals." 14. The issue raised by assessee in ground No. 1 is similar to the issue raised in ground No. 3 in ITA No. 696/PUN/2015. The issue raised in ground No.2 is similar to the issue raised in ground No. 4 in ITA No. 696/PUN/2015. Followi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ges and supervision charges for the reason that some of the expenses are supported by self made vouchers. 4) On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 is not justified in confirming disallowance of Rs. 11,235/- on account of office expenses and vehicle expenses ignoring the reasonability compared to the nature and volume of the business. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 is further not justified in not adjudicating the issue on merit. 5) On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 is not justified in directing the AO to take further action against the appellant for A.Y 2003-04 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
