9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in these appeals, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Assessment Year 2006-07 2. The only issue raised by the Revenue in this appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 3,67,14,462/-. 3. Succinctly, the factual matrix of the case is that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act') was carried out on M/s Jaipuria group of cases on 27.03.2012. Notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee, pursuant to which a return of income was filed. The Assessing Officer observed that huge 'Advertisement expenses' were claimed to have been incurred. On being called upon to furnish the details of the parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeded to make the addition without ascertaining the genuineness or otherwise of these transactions. His inference of non-genuineness of the transactions was based simply on non-compliance by these two parties, whose complete particulars were with him. In case of non-compliance, the AO ought to have deputed Inspector or got the enquiry conducted by any other means before jumping to the conclusion of the non-genuineness of the transactions. It is further pertinent to note that additions were made in similar way in other years of the assessee company. Such an issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment years 200910 and 2011-12. Vide order dated 06.04.2018, the Tribunal, in ITA No.860 and 862/De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r did not record any satisfaction before proceeding to make any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. In the absence of recording of such a satisfaction, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 13,89,653/- and deleted the remaining addition. Both the sides are in appeal on their respective stands. 9. We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. The ld. AR contended that the ld. CIT(A) wrongly recorded the fact about the assessee having suo motu disallowed Rs. 13,89,653/-. Relying on the Tribunal order for the A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2011-12 passed in the assessee's own case, the ld. AR contended that no incriminating material was found during the course of search and, hence, the addition sustained u/s 14A of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowance of Rs. 13.89 lac in the original return or any such addition was made. If it is found that no return was filed or the disallowance was so offered or an addition made in the order u/s 143(3) of the Act that, then, such a disallowance has to be repeated in the assessment made u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act. In the otherwise scenario, the ratio laid down in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) will apply and the addition will stand deleted. The ground raised by the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed and that taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Assessment Year 2008-09 12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
