9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not be considered. Consequentially the matter could not be referred to the Ld. TPO in terms of the CBDT instruction. Needless to mention that the AO has not considered the reason for scrutiny selection as per CASS and failed to conduct necessary enquiry for the reason as narrated hereinbefore. We, therefore, find substance in the argument advanced by the Ld. DR. Mr. Sharma. Also we do not appreciate the submission made by the Ld. AR in support of his case. Though the said 3CB-3CD report was submitted through electronic media on 30.09.2014 we have to consider that during that relevant point of time when filing of documents through electronic media was introduced it is quite natural that without having expertise knowledge every person in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order impugned. 2. The assessee conducting trading business filed its return of income through electronic media on 07.10.2014 declaring total income at ₹ 95,29,040/- for assessment year under consideration which was finalized under Section 143(3) of the Act on 07.12.2016. It is relevant to mention that the assessee shown income from business or profession and capital gain. Such assessment order was finalized by making disallowance of ₹ 4,141/- under Section 14A of the Act and ₹ 1,20,866/- on account of late payment of PF & ESIC. Subsequently upon perusal of the records certain discrepancies were found in rendering assessment order dated 07.12.2016 which was considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made out by the Revenue. Since Audit Report of the assessee was not filed the same was not examined during the assessment proceeding. 4. At the time of the hearing of the instant appeal the Ld. Representative appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the assessee is having two proprietary firms Anuj Enterprise and Anuj Synthetics engaged in the business of trading and manufacturing of Gray and finished fabrics. Since the amount in question was paid too from one to the other proprietorship of the assessee for purchase of gray, the same does not come under the purview of related person neither falls under the definition of specified domestic transaction in terms of Sec. 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Hence, the matter is not required to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee in Form 3CB-3CD was not made available before the Ld. AO and, thus, the fact of making payment of ₹ 33,29,62,451/- to the persons specified under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act for purchase of gray as mentioned in the said Audit Report could not be considered. Consequentially the matter could not be referred to the Ld. TPO in terms of the CBDT instruction. Needless to mention that the AO has not considered the reason for scrutiny selection as per CASS and failed to conduct necessary enquiry for the reason as narrated hereinbefore. We, therefore, find substance in the argument advanced by the Ld. DR. Mr. Sharma. 7. On the other hand, we do not appreciate the submission made by the Ld. AR in support of his case. Though the said 3CB- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
