9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (1) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 30th October, 1976. In this assessment, while computing the disallowance in respect of one Shri D.V. Rajadhyaksha u/s. 40A(5), a sum of Rs. 2,650 paid to him as bonus was not taken into consideration. Only the salary and commission amounting to Rs. 68,050 was considered and out of this Rs. 8,050 was disallowed. By his order u/s. 154, now under appeal the ITO disallowed a further amount of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requiring the assessee to file objections on 28th October, 1980 and that the assessee had therefore, no sufficient opportunity to raise its objections. The ITO could not grant further time as the matter was getting barred by limitation. As the objection of the assessee is one which could be adequately considered at the appellate stage, it is not necessary to restore the matter to the ITO. 4. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , that the question whether any disallowance can be made is, therefore, a debatable one and that on rectification can, therefore, be made u/s. 154. There is no merit in this contention also. The disallowance has been worked out in the assessment order u/s. 40A(5). This is clear from the rectification order. The assessee did not question the assessment and it had become final. The ITO has now only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
