Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 971 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - Various disallowance made - No material whatsoever was found relating to the routine disallowance - whether these disallowances can be made or confirmed sans any incriminating material found during the course of search – Held that:- In CIT Vs. M/s. Murali Agro Products Ltd. [2010 (10) TMI 1052 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] it has been held that once it is held that the assessment finalized has attained finality, then the deduction allowed u/s 80HHC of the Income-tax Act as well as the loss computed under the assessment would attain finality - In such a case, the AO while passing the independent assessment order u/s 153A read with section 143(3) could not have disturbed the assessment/ reassessment order which has attained finality, unless the materials gathered in the course of the proceedings u/s 153A to establish that the reliefs granted under the finalised assessment/reassessment were contrary to the facts unearthed during the course of 153 A proceedings - there is nothing on record to suggest that any material was unearthed during the search or during the 153A proceeding which would show that the relief u/s 80HHC was erroneous – thus, the disallowances which has been confirmed by the CIT(A) cannot be uphold - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition of bogus bills/purchases made for construction – Held that:- The AO has not only relied upon the admission of the Director, Mr. Viren Ahuja at the time of statement u/s 132(4), but also has analyzed the nature of transaction and carried out inquiry to find out that the claim of purchases made for construction were bogus - once the evidences and materials are indicating the non-genuineness of the expenditure, the onus is heavily upon the assessee to prove the contrary on the basis of concrete material or evidence - onus has not been discharged by the assessee at all and not only, that it has been categorically admitted by the assessee when it was confronted during the course of search that, the payments relating to purchases are bogus – there was no merits in the contention raised by the assessee and the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against assessee.
|