9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plete reasons and lack in the context of invocation of Section 148 itself. Therefore, the reopening itself is bad and hence the assessment is bad in law. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. Assessment u/s 153A - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to note that there is no incriminating material shown by the Assessing Officer upon which the addition was made. In fact, the seized ledger accounts pertains to A.Y. 2011-12 only and therefore the said material cannot be held against the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 and also cannot be termed as incriminating material. While making the additions on these documents, the AO has not specifically pointed out that these expense but has disallowed all these expenses only on ad-hoc basis which is not permissible under the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the additions made itself does not have any foundation as such. Thus, the appeal of the Revenue does not sustain. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 1105/DEL/2015, 4292/DEL/2016 (A.Y 2005-06 & 2012-13) - - - Dated:- 19-3-2020 - SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by: Sh. Salil Agrawal, Adv Respondent by: Sh.H. K. Choudhary, CIT(DR) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition for inflated claim of transportation expense amounting to ₹ 28,57,378/-. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition regarding bogus/inflated claim of new vehicle expense amounting to ₹ 41,69,303/-. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of travelling expenses amounting to ₹ 48,19,079/-. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the regular books of account seized during search do not form incriminating document even if its entries are found false on investigation. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of personal expenses amounting to ₹ 10,00,000/-. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in relying on the order of Hon ble High Court Delhi in case of Kabul Chawla, when the addition was based on investigation of seized documents. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 18,35,27,104/-. During the course of original assessment all the details relating to rebate and discount was filed. There was specific query raised by the Assessing Officer in respect of these transactions. Further, the details of bank account from which payment was made, was also filed during the course of original assessment. In the original assessment, the Assessing Officer was satisfied about the genuineness of the rebate and discount and completed the assessment without any adverse inference. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. DCIT 356 ITR 209. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in the trading of Tata Vehicles as such the assessee offers rebate and discount to the customers for sales promotions. Documentary evidence in respect of the transaction being sample copy of invoice, delivery order, transfer voucher was filed during the original assessment proceedings as well as Sec. 148 proceedings by the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that the observation at the time of re-opening relating to cheques in cash by few persons are not tenable as these persons were neither the emp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts are that the search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on PASCO Group of cases on 17/2/2012. In response to return filed u/s 153A of the Act, the detail questionnaire was issued calling for the various information and explanation by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer while passing the order disallowed the expenses of ₹ 98,12,000/- under the head rebate and discount, also disallowed ₹ 28,57,378/- under the head transportation expense, ₹ 41,69,303/- under the head new vehicle expenses, ₹ 48,19,079/- under the head travelling expenses, ₹ 10 lakhs under the head personal expenses and ₹ 9,77,686/- u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, as well as addition of ₹ 4,21,665/- was also made in respect of interest income. 11. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 12. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order as well as the order of the CIT(A). The Ld. DR further submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleing the addition for bogus claim of rebate/incentive/discount amount to ₹ 98, 12,000/-. The details were not given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
