9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, JJ. Mr. N.C. Mohanty for the Appellant Mr. Beni Chatterji, Senior Counsel with Ms Maya Majumdar, Mr. Abhishek Padwalkar Mr. Ranit Basu for the Respondent ORDER P. C. 1. This appeal arises from the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Mumbai, dated 6-6-2014. 2. The Assessment Year is 2007-08. 3. The Revenue has proposed the following questions as substantial questions of law: (A) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in upholding the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 6,05,69,228/as bogus credit u/s 68 of the Act? (B) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial on record to indicate that the Assessing Officer has made a double addition. There could not have been an addition in the hands of the company once Mr. Anil Gupta, Managing Director of M/s. SKS Ispat Ltd., has offered the amount to tax. He has offered the entire amount and not just a part, as indicated in the previous order. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Mohanty, relying upon para 12 of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), running page 103 and 104 of the paperbook, would submit that the explanation of Anil Gupta is only in relation to unaccounted sales of ₹ 1,67,46,269/and he offered gross profit on them, amounting to ₹ 8,37,313/as undisclosed income. From where the Tribunal derives the knowledge that Mr. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the AO with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh and pass a speaking order after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, this part of the ground is allowed for statistical purposes. Ground no.1 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 10. We do not think that this manner of dealing with the appeal of the Revenue, in particular Income Tax Appeal No.9204/M/2010, is satisfactory. Equally, the assessee stands prejudiced by the direction to the Assessing Officer, as above. 11. In the circumstances, by consent of the parties, we direct the Assessing Officer to examine the entire addition of ₹ 7,63,83,662/made allegedly on account of sales outside the books of account. This issue wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
