9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 1146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment. During the course of such survey excess stock valued at ₹ 8,18,108/- was found. Similarly an amount of ₹ 79,791/- on account of shortage of cash was also noticed. The assessee accepted both the amounts as additional income. The assessee filed return of income on 31-08-2000 declaring total income at ₹ 8,88,900/- which included the additional income declared during the course of survey. The AO in the order passed u/s.143(3) on 28-03-2003 completed the assessment determining the total income at ₹ 21,99,205/- by making the additions amounting to ₹ 12,66,085/-, the details of which are as under : Net Profit Rs. 44,230/- Add : Additions : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as modified on 04-08-2003. The assessee subsequently produced the photocopy of the envelope in which the assessment order was despatched which shows that the envelope was despatched on 09-04-2003 at 12.46 pm. 4. On being confronted by the CIT(A) the AO reported that there was no record which shows that the assessment order was despatched on or before 31-03-2003. Based on the above factual matrix and relying on various decisions the learned CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the assessment order was not issued on or before 31-03-2003. He accordingly held that the order passed by the AO was bad in law and he accordingly annulled the same. Since he annulled the assessment order, he did not adjudicate the various additions on merit. 4.1 A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been beyond the stipulated period. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in applying the decisions in the cases of Agricultural Income Tax Vs. Kappumalai Estate (1998) 234 ITR 187 (Ker.) and Government Wood Works Vs. State of Kerala (1988) 69 STC 62 (Ker.) when on facts involved the cases were inapplicable in the instant case. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in observing that u/s.153(10 of the I.T. Act, 1961 the AO was required to serve the assessment order on the assessee within stipulated time when it is actually laid down that the AO was required to make the order within the stipulated time. 6. On the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lied to this office vide its application Dtd 19-08-2004 and made request for inspection of the Computer on which the said order is prepared/ modified. The matter was referred to the CIT, Kolhapur through Addl. CIT, Range 2 Sangli and directions were sought for in this regard. The Addl. CIT-Range 2 Sangli, keeping reliance upon directions issued by the CIT, Kolhapur, vide letter No. Kop/ACIT(HQ)/1999/04-05 Dt. 28-09-2004 directed to this office by letter no. Sli/Jt. CIT/R-2/SVA/2004-05 Dt. 08-10-2004 to comply by sending further remand report to the Hon ble CIT(A), Kolhapur regarding factual report after verifying the said computer. In view of the above direction, I have carried out the inspection of the computer on which the above order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
