9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 888X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no dispute, that the assessee did not claim during assessment proceedings that prior period expenses crystallized during the current period relevant to Assessment Year 2010-11; and, that the AO did not get any opportunity to examine the assessee's claim - CIT(A) did not provide any opportunity to the AO, to rebut this claim made by the assessee for the first time during appellate proceedings before Ld. CIT(A) - CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order on how he came to the conclusion, that the aforesaid prior period expenses had crystallized during the year relevant to Assessment Year 2010-11. Assessee faced genuine difficulties in fully complying with all the requirements prescribed by the AO during assessment proceedings. Regarding the claim of the assessee (in Assessment Year 2010-11) that prior period expenses crystallized during the period relevant to Assessment Year 2010-11; we find that this claim was not scrutinized properly either during assessment proceedings (because this claim was not made by the assessee during assessment proceedings) before the AO, or during appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). We set aside the impugned appellate orders of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is perverse both in law and facts of the instant case. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing. ITA No. 6465/Del/2013 for Asst. Year 2005-06 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made u/s. 13(3) of the Act without considering the fact stated by the AO and giving reasons for the same. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO being 30% of the total expenditure claimed without considering the fact stated by the AO through the assessment order. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is perverse both in law and facts of the instant case. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing. ITA No. 6466/Del/2013 for Asst. Year 2006-07 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made u/s. 13(3) of the Act without considering the fact stated by the AO and giving reasons for the same. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO being 30% of the expenditure claimed without considering the fact stated by the AO through the assessment order. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is perverse both in law and facts of the instant case. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing. ITA No. 6060/Del/2013 for Asst. Year 2010-11 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made u/s. 13(3) of the Act without considering the fact stated by the AO and giving reasons for the same. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made being 10% of the expenditure claimed without considering the fact stated by the AO in the assessment orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned under Section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) is provided. He also submitted that this information was in the exclusive knowledge of the Assessee. He further submitted that it was incorrect on the part of the Ld. CIT(A) to throw the burden on the Revenue for a material fact which could be disclosed only by the Assessee. It was furthermore submitted by the Ld. Special Counsel that whether there is any misuse of trust property or income of the trust, is a matter of fact and requires enquiry and investigation. The Ld. Special Counsel submitted, still furthermore, that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was perverse on the facts of the case and ought to be set aside. In this regard, it was submitted by him, moreover, that the Ld. CIT(A) had completely ignored the observations of the Assessing Officer, regarding non-cooperation and non-compliance made by the Assessee, in furnishing the relevant details of the specified persons, their PAN details and their interest in concerns/activities. The Ld. Special Counsel went on to submit that the Ld. CIT(A) had also failed to note that without such information being made available to the A.O., no proper factual finding could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere were unsubstantiated expenses, etc. In fact, the Ld. Special Counsel submitted, the Ld. CIT(A) had given a wrong finding that the relevant documents were produced before the A.O., when the AO categorically recorded the various instances of non-compliance. Such a baseless finding, without any backing or evidence deserved to be rejected, the Ld. Special Counsel submitted. He also submitted that the books were also not produced before the CIT(A). Moreover, the Ld. Special Counsel submitted that the mere production of sample books of accounts, and that too for some zones, by the Assessee, could not be considered to form any basis for conducting effective enquiry by the A.O. It was contended by Ld. Special Counsel that such a finding of the CIT(A) cannot form the basis for relief to the assessee, when there were categorical findings of non-cooperation by the Assessee, made in the assessment order. In this context, the Ld. Special Counsel submitted that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside for want of proper reasons, being erroneous and suffering from non-application of mind. On the other hand, the Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the books of accounts were produced before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, at the time of hearing, the representatives of both sides, the Ld. Special Counsel for Revenue as well as the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee were in agreement that all the issues in dispute in these appeals should be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Before us, the representatives of both sides also submitted that every course of action as per law should be left upon for both sides during fresh assessment proceedings. ( D.1. ) It is not in dispute, that the Assessee failed to furnish full information to the AO, during assessment proceedings, in respect of application or use of income or property for use of specified persons referred to in section 13(3) of IT Act. It is also not in dispute that relevant details of the specified persons, such as PAN and their interest in concerns/activities were not provided by the assessee to the AO. Further, it is not in dispute that the assessee had failed to make full compliance with the requirements made by the AO, to produce the books of accounts, relevant supporting documents and other information/documents as presc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
