9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner cancels the assessment, but there is no real prejudice to the assessee – other than the assessee suffering the process once again – in a fresh assessment being required to be undertaken. Since in this case the Appellate Tribunal looked into the documents that were furnished by the assessee in response to the show-cause notice issued under Section 263 and found, on facts, that the perceived bogus transactions were genuine, the order impugned does not call for any interference on such ground. The other ground pertains to the rate of depreciation that the assessee had claimed and the permissibility thereof. Appellate Tribunal took into consideration the fact that depreciation at the enhanced rate had been permitted in at least ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue of the fraudulent transactions was said to be to the tune of ₹ 3,94,90,558/-. On the basis of such communication, the jurisdictional Commissioner called upon the assessee to explain the position; or else the Commissioner would deal with the matter under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is the admitted position that no report of the complaining income tax official from Mumbai was forwarded to the assessee nor was any statement that may have been obtained in course of the Mumbai investigation from any official of Duralloy furnished to the assessee. In response to the show-cause notice dated March 24, 2014, the assessee issued a prompt reply on March 28, 2014 disclosing voluminous documents and claiming such documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment, but there is no real prejudice to the assessee other than the assessee suffering the process once again in a fresh assessment being required to be undertaken. However, since in this case the Appellate Tribunal looked into the documents that were furnished by the assessee in response to the show-cause notice issued under Section 263 of the Act and found, on facts, that the perceived bogus transactions were genuine, the order impugned does not call for any interference on such ground. The other ground pertains to the rate of depreciation that the assessee had claimed and the permissibility thereof. The Appellate Tribunal took into consideration the fact that depreciation at the enhanced rate had been permitted in at leas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
