Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 199 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 r.w section 148 – Held that:- In Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Limited [2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME Court] it has already been held that intimation u/s 143(1)(a) cannot be treated as assessment order - It is only when regular assessment is made, the AO gets an opportunity of applying his mind to various aspects concerning the assessment - such noticing as may be from the material already on record or some new material coming to his knowledge - ADIT noticed that Assessee was the real owner of various projects and the Managing Director of the Assessee had also admitted to undisclosed profit from Kalhar Bunglow Project, the main project being developed by Assessee and offered the same to tax - the material was sufficient to the AO to proceed with the proceedings of reopening of the assessment - the AO was fully justified in re-opening the assessment – Decided against assessee. Addition u/s 68 - Failure to discharge onus upon assessee – Held that:- AO has noted that Assessee had received unsecured loans but Assesse had not discharged the onus by proving the identity, capacity and genuineness of the transaction - CIT(A) has not given any finding with respect to the deposits received by the Assessee and further the depositers are different in both the AYs i.e. A.Y. 2000-01 and A.Y. 97-98 - one more opportunity be granted to Assessee to furnish all the required details called for by the AO so as to discharge the onus as required u/s. 68 of the Act – the matter is to be remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of revenue. Bogus and unexplained liability – Held that:- AO while disallowing the liability for expenses has noted that Assessee did not furnish the necessary evidence while CIT(A) deleted the addition has noted that AO has not disproved the claim of Assessee that each liability was supported by evidences and the reply was furnished before AO - CIT(A) has not called any remand report from AO - no details of the liability for expenses, except as shown in the Balance sheet was placed on record - the issue needs re-examination at the end of CIT(A) – thus, the matter is to be remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication – Decided in favour of revenue. Application of net profit rate – Held that:- CIT(A) while deleting the addition has noted that AO has not brought any material on record of any details/instances of unvouched expenses and not pointed any instance in which the expenses debited to Profit and Loss Account etc. was recovered from the project - on similar facts for A.Y. 97-98, the rejection of books of accounts was not upheld by ld. CIT(A) - Revenue was not brought any material to controvert the finding of CIT(A) – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against revenue.
|