9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see by recomputing the income at ₹ 54,84,356/-. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted being mistake in calculation of loss as income in respect of Insight Share Brokers Ltd., mistaken calculation of M/s. Share Khan Pvt. Ltd. and finally on account of closing balance - On going through the orders of lower authorities, we are of the considered view that the additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer have been partly confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) without properly going into the submissions and merits of the explanation of the assessee and evidences available on record. Thus, we restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for considering the issue afresh in accordance with law by providing adequate opportunity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed under section 144 of the Act. Since the issues involved in these four appeals are common, they are heard together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. First we take up the appeals of the assessee Mr. A.Natarajan in ITA Nos. 780 781/Mds/2014 for consideration. The first ground raised by the assessee is that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have accepted the contention of the assessee that appeal filed on 9.4.2009 as infructuous as the ex-parte order appealed against had been set aside by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act on 18.3.2009. 3. Counsel for the assessee submits that assessment in this case was completed on 27.12.2006 making various additions. This assessment was m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee that appeal should have been treated as infructuous is not correct. This ground of appeal is rejected. 6. Coming to the merits of the case, i.e. on various disallowances / additions made, the assessee has raised several grounds as under:- No evidence should have been required in support of non-taxability of a cheque for ₹ 7,70,680/- wrongly held as received, while the transaction with share brokers have been separately considered to arrive at income. There was no cheque for this amount at all, as it represented settlement and auction debited to assessee s account by share broker. An uncashed cheque for ₹ 1,88,683/- (₹ 9,59,363/- less above sum of ₹ 7,70,680/-) should not have been held as ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficient opportunity. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) enhanced the assessment by assessing income from financing business at ₹ 4.5 lakhs without giving opportunity to the assessee and ignoring the fact that there was money lending activity during the year. Counsel for the assessee submits that account statements were obtained directly from the bank by the Assessing Officer while framing assessment under section 144 and therefore it is not correct in allowing prior withdrawals shown against deposits on the ground that no evidence was furnished. Counsel submits that income not having been computed on the basis of increase / decrease in capital, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in holding that computatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee Mr. A.Natarajan, additions were based on the findings in the case of her husband Mr. A.Natarajan and therefore assessment in the case of Smt. N.Pappi also needs to be set aside as the present conclusions are based on the findings of the assessee s husband case. He further submits that penalty appeals may also be go back to the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer is free to levy penalty after afresh proceedings. 10. Departmental Representative supports the orders of lower authorities. 11. Heard both sides. Perused orders of lower authorities. In this case , assessment was made under section 144 of the Act by the Assessing Officer making various additions/disallowances. On appeal, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
