Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (5) TMI 654

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... urnished during the assessee proceedings cannot be considered as additional evidence, as even during the proceedings only account copies of the shareholders in the books of M/s. Srinadh Trading Co. have been produced - Revenue has not brought anything on record to controvert the findings of the CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue. Restriction of disallowance of depreciation – Held that:- Most of the payments were made through bank accounts and relevant invoice of the assets were also filed before the CIT(A) - AO and CIT(A) erred in restricting the depreciation as claimed - As the assessment was completed ex-parte u/s 144, AO should have examined the additional evidence furnished in the course of remand proceedings – the assessee was put to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ome under the normal provisions and Rs.13,85,405/- under section 115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961. A notice under section 143(2) dated 23.09.2008 was issued posting the case on 02.09.2008 as stated in the assessment order itself. The said notice was served on 29.09.2008. As there was no response, further posting and summons were issued and assessee has not responded to any of the notices. Assessee filed some information with reference to show cause letter issued. A.O. completed the assessment under section 144 of the I.T. Act treating the share capital amount received at Rs.2 crores as unexplained credits in the books of accounts. He made an addition of Rs.1,71,51,524/- out of Rs. 2 crores of cash credits excluding income returned. Further, A.O. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d. CIT(A) examined the facts on remand and has given detailed reasons deleting the amount in his order as under : 9. I have gone through the facts of the case and the submissions of the appellant. So far as the issue of admission of additional evidence is concerned, it is seen from the assessment order that the appellant had submitted the ledger extracts of the persons from whom such share capital was received during the year. From the information furnished, the A.O. also noticed that the appellant had transferred balances standing in the names of persons to the share capital account. However, he felt that there were no sufficient balances in the accounts to transfer to the share capital account. In order to arrange funds in the account .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion on the basis of WDV as available in the earlier year. Assessee furnished necessary copies of vouchers, details and date of put to use in a statement before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) sent the additional evidence along with issue of share capital (considered in Revenue appeal) to the A.O. on remand. A.O. however, did not examine the additional evidence on the reason that the same was not furnished in the course of assessment proceedings and recommended that additional evidence should not be entertained. There is no further opportunity to the assessee with reference to furnishing of any original vouchers or examination of the details furnished to the A.O. Ld. CIT(A) without considering the above, upheld the addition on the reason that ass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d in law. 10. Learned D.R. placed on record copy of notice and also admitted that A.O. himself mentions the date in the assessment order but it was submitted that this is only a mistake in mentioning the date as 02.09.2008 rather 02.10.2008. The mistake in month should not render notice invalid, even though admittedly there is a mistake in the notice. 11. Having considered the rival contentions, we are of the opinion that there is indeed mistake in mentioning the date of posting as 02.09.2008. However, we are of the opinion that this mistake should not be considered as making the notice as invalid one, as the assessee got the notice under section 143(2) before 31.10.2008 and the assessment was reopened by issuing a notice. The distinc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates