9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-XVIII, New Delhi, dated 09.10.2012. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: 1. That the Ld. AO had erred on facts and under the law without bringing any conclusive evidence on record in making an addition of ₹ 17,76,209/- on account of alleged unexplained investment u/s. 69 of I.T. Act on the ground that such amount was allegedly paid in cash outside its books of accounts to M/s. V.K. Tours Transport. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to make enhancement of addition from ₹ 17,76,209/- to ₹ 49,02,000/- resulting in enhanced addition of ₹ 31,25,791/- on account of alleged purchase of vehicle without giving a notice/reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant for making such enhancement as provided u/s. 251(2) of I.T. Act and consequently, the enhanced addition of ₹ 31,25,791/- as made being wholly illegal, deserves to be deleted. 3. That without prejudice to above, addition of ₹ 17,76,209/- as made by the AO being wholly unjust, arbitrary and untenable, ought to have been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) and there was also no justification on the part of Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02,713/- after giving effect to CIT(A) order and the income-tax demand created thereon at ₹ 5,19,61,820/- vide order u/s. 250/143(3)/148 dated 26/11/2012 is arbitrary, unjust and at any rate, without prejudice, very excessive. 8. That the levy of interest u/s. 234 vide Income-tax Computation Form dated 26/11/2012 at ₹ 2,96,12,650/- is wholly unjust and illegal. At any rate, without prejudice, the levy of such interest is very excessive. 3. The assessee has filed additional grounds before the Tribunal on 26.11.2018 and requested for admission of the same. The additional grounds read as under: 1. The reopening of assessment is illegal, bad in law and the assessment order passed pursuant to such illegal assumption of jurisdiction is void ab-initio which deserves to be quashed. 4. During the hearing for the admission of the additional ground, the ld. DR opposed for admission of additional ground arguing that this is not the time to raise such grounds as the AO and ld. CIT(A) have not been confronted with any such objection and raising of the technical ground at this juncture cannot be admitted. 5. The ld. AR argued that the ground raised being a legal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case has to be considered on its own facts. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner must be satisfied that the ground raised was bona fide and that the same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner should exercise his discretion in permitting or not permitting the assessee to raise an additional ground in accordance with law and reason. The same observations would apply to appeals before the Tribunal also. 7. The view that the Tribunal is confined only to issues arising out of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) takes too narrow a view of the powers of the Appellate Tribunal [vide, e.g., C.I.T. v. Anand Prasad (Delhi), C.I.T. v. Karamchand Premchand P. Ltd. and C.I.T. v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings we fail to see why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .06.2019 Name of the Applicant Sh. Satinder Pal Singh Date of receipt of application 16.05.2019 Date of Order 10.06.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION 7(1) OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 Kindly refer to your application under the RTI Act, 2005 dated 14.05.2019. You have requested vide above RTI application for providing copy of reasons recorded in writing for reopening of assessment of M/s. Dominion Investment (P.) Ltd. A.Y. 2002-03 which is required by you to present case of M/s. Dominion Investment (P.) Ltd. for A.Y. 2002-03 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi. In this regard, it is stated that the assessment record of M/s. Dominion Investment (P.) Ltd. PAN: AAACD3199A for A.Y. 2002-03 is presently not traceable. As the documents requested by you are part of the assessment record which is not traceable, this office is unable to provide you the copy o reasons recorded for reopening of assessment in the case. If aggrieved, the applicant, within 30 days from the receipt of this order, may prefer appeal against this order before the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax. Range-7, Room No. 407, 4th Floor, Central Revenue Building, I. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
