9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laced on record suggesting that the auditor clarified it to be typographical error, coupled with the fact that CIT(A) had given a finding on fact that no evidence is furnished in support of the transportation and storage of the Guar seeds. The assessee has stated that the delivery of Guar seeds were taken, however, no evidence is furnished to rebut the finding of CIT(A). In the light of above discussion Ground Nos.1 & 2 of the Assessee’s appeal are dismissed. - I.T.A. No.160/Ahd/2013 (Assessment Year : 2005-06) - - - Dated:- 17-7-2015 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi And Shri Kul Bharat, JJ. Appellant by: Shri R.T. Shah, AR Respondent by: Shri Roop Chand, Sr.DR ORDER Shri Kul Bharat, This appeal by the Assessee is direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee was reopened for assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was framed vide order dated 16/12/2010, thereby the Assessing Officer (AO in short). In the original assessment framed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 31/12/2007, the total income of the assessee was determined at ₹ 11,78,170/-. However, in the reassessment, the income was assessed at ₹ 26,06,831/-. While making the assessment, the AO treated the transaction of Gaur Seeds and sales of shares as speculation loss amounting to ₹ 16,70,258/- and disallowed the same. Against this, the assessee filed before the ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions dismissed the appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s rightly set off against the normal business income. He further submitted that all the information was available with the AO and the AO ought to have accepted the submissions of the assessee. He submitted that in the original assessment, the AO has rightly accepted the claim of the assessee. He submitted that the reopening is merely on the basis of change of opinion. He further submitted that all details were placed before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The ld.counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following case-laws:- (i) Debashis Moulik vs. ACIT (2015) 370 ITR 660 (Cal.) (ii) Techman Buildwell P.Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 771(Del.) (iii) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of shares and it should have been of ₹ 6,67,52,252/-. However, the final figure was taken in shares as ₹ 35,72,694/-. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO in remand report, placed at page Nos.48 to 50 of the paper-book, has confirmed the fact that Gaur seeds were purchased and delivery is stated to have been taken. Under these facts, at this stage, we need to examine whether the AO had applied his mind during the original assessment proceedings on the details so furnished and also what were the details available with the AO at that point of time. As per Annexure-C to the tax audit report of form 3CD placed at page 36 of the paper-book stated Gaur future. The said Annexure-C is reproduced hereinbelow:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xamined this aspect. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity into re-opening of the assessment when the assessee himself has shown to have transacted in Guar future. Moreover, there is no material placed on record suggesting that the auditor clarified it to be typographical error, coupled with the fact that ld.CIT(A) had given a finding on fact that no evidence is furnished in support of the transportation and storage of the Guar seeds. The assessee has stated that the delivery of Guar seeds were taken, however, no evidence is furnished to rebut the finding of ld.CIT(A). In the light of above discussion Ground Nos.1 2 of the Assessee s appeal are dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
