9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 790X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deem it fit and appropriate to admit these additional evidences and since these evidences were not placed before the ld. CIT(A), we deem it fit and appropriate, to remand these appeals to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue challenging the validity of reopening of assessment by considering these evidences, in accordance with law - the appeals are remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) only for the limited purpose of adjudication of the legal issue of challenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings. But since, the validity of re-assessment proceedings and challenging the addition on merits are to be considered together for the purpose of better administration and convenience, we deem it fit to remand these appeals to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee in its cross objections are legal in nature and hence, they are first taken up for adjudication. We find that assessee has challenged the validity of re-assessment proceedings in its cross objections. We find that assessee company is engaged in the business of property development and had filed its return of income for the Asst Year 2008-09 declaring income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, a search and seizure action u/s.132(1) of the Act was conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax department in Jogia Group on 04/03/2010. Pursuant to the search, in response to notice u/s.153A of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income on 26/02/2011 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforesaid addition of ₹ 2,50,00,000/-. We find that the ld. CIT(A) by passing an elaborate order deleted the protective addition made in the case of the assessee in the sum of ₹ 2,50,00,000/- but however, observed that the addition need to be made on substantive basis in the hands of Shree Global Tradefin Ltd., (SGTL). Correspondingly, the commission of ₹ 7,50,000/- was also directed to be deleted by the ld. CIT(A) in assessee s hands. 4.2. We find that the reasons for reopening of the assessment were provided to the assessee by the ld. AO and assessee filed objections to the same vide letter dated 29/09/2014. The ld. AO vide letter dated 20/01/2015 and 03/02/2015 rejected the objections so raised by the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. 2. Sh. Ajay Kumar Auster Properties Ltd 3. Sh. Ajay Kumar Reva Properties Ltd. 4. Sh. Om Hari Halan Archieve Realty Developers Ltd., 5. Sh. Om Hari Halan Vedisa Properties Ltd. 6. Sh. Narayan Hari Halan Martand Properties Ltd. 7. Sh. Narayan Hari Halan Karburi Properties Ltd. 8. Sh. Narayan Hari Halan Cikura Properties Ltd. 4.5. It was also found that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o requested this Tribunal to admit those additional evidences for dealing with the legal issue of challenging initiation of re-assessment proceedings. These additional evidences are summarised as under:- 1. Application made vide letter dated 25/06/2018 for inspection and copies of records for A.Y.2008-09. 2. Letter issued by the Assessing Officer dated 12/07/2018 in response to our application. 3. Letter of the Assessing Officer dated 13/3/2014 forwarding the proposal for reopening to the Commr. Of Income Tax, Central-III. 4. Letter of the Addl. Commr. Of Income Tax, Central Range-VIII dated 18/03/2014 forwarding the papers to the Commr. Of Income Tax, Central-III. 5. ITO Headquarters put up for the approval of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
