Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2012 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (8) TMI 418 - AT - Income TaxValidity of a decision where reasons are not recorded - held that:- Recording of reasons is a part of fair procedure. Reasons are the harbinger between the mind of the maker of the decision in the controversy and the decision or conclusion arrived at. They substitute subjectivity with objectivity. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. - Decision of Apex court in Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works Vs. CIT and another [2005 (1) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT] followed. Unaccounted scrap sales - alleged unaccounted scrap sales was found in the course of survey and the assessee could not produce any evidence for the argument that the same is included in the scrap sales already shown in the books of accounts – Held that:- One of the reasons for making the addition was that the assessee did not furnish any evidence to substantiate its claim that the income had already been offered to tax in the earlier years - it is not clear as to whether the earlier record which was available with the AO had been considered while taking a view that no evidence was produced by the assessee - issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication Disallowance of the travelling expenses incurred by the wife of Managing Director - AO made the disallowance by observing that the directors and their spouses travelled abroad and that travel was personal in nature - claim of the assessee is that the director of the company travelled for business purposes and his wife accompanied him – Held that:- Facts are not clear as to whether the director traveled for the business purposes - issue is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law, after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Capital gains on the transfer of immovable property - possession of the land is not given as per the terms of agreement and will be handed over to the developer only after completion of the work – Held that:- claim of the assessee was that amount was received as an advance, would be offered for taxation when the sale deed gets executed - nothing is brought on record to suggest that M/s. IDEB had taken possession of the property either physically or constructively - matter remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication
|