Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2010 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (7) TMI 834 - AT - Income TaxAssessment completed u/s143(3) r/w section 153A is void ab initio - HELD THAT:- The persons to be searched as mentioned in the warrant were severally living in different places. The only thing is the physical state of the warrant, was a common paper. So the warrant characterised as a common warrant in the present case is entirely different from the case of joint warrant considered in the case of Smt. Vandana Verma [2009 (10) TMI 52 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. Therefore, we are not in a position to accept the legal contention against the validity of the assessment. We hold that the impugned assessment order is valid. Writing off a debt as bad - HELD THAT:- from the facts of the case, it is very clear that when the return of income was filed by the assessee, no debt was recoverable from the buyers of the property. We find a lot of force in the argument of the learned CIT regarding the non-committal of the assessee-company in pursuing the legal remedies available before it for the recovery of the amount. Therefore, in these circumstances, we do not find that the debt has become bad debt. It was only a case of delayed payment. In short, we find that the CIT (A) has rightly confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 3,66,71,850. The appeal filed by the assessee-company is, therefore, liable to be dismissed both on law and facts. cross-appeal filed by the Revenue - deleting on-money addition made by the AO - HELD THAT:- The issue has been elaborately discussed by the CIT (A) in his order and we agree with him and, therefore, we find that the CIT (A) is justified in deleting the on-money payment of Rs. 2.85 crores. Thus, The Revenue fails in its appeal. company on substantive basis - addition made on protective basis - HELD THAT:- we find that there is no basis for the CIT (A) to come to a conclusion that on-money payment was received by the assessee, Shri Jaikishan Virwani. Incidentally, we have to state that the order in the case of M/s. Embassy Classic P. Ltd., was passed by one CIT (A) and the order in the case of Shri Jaikishan Virwani was passed by another CIT (A). In short, we find that the addition has to be deleted and the appeal of the assessee be allowed.
|