Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 622 - AT - Income TaxValidity of the assessment - notice u/s.158BC(c) has not been properly served - Held that:- The stand taken by the assessee about the criteria of the notice u/s.158BC is not acceptable. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. Once the assessee has been served the notice and in compliance to the same the assessee has responded by filing the return, now he cannot take a ground that the service of notice is improper. Further, the Ld. counsel for the assessee could not prove that the notice was not served by registered post, a finding given by the CIT(A). He has not addressed as to in which manner the notice was served otherwise than by Registered Post. In view of the above, the various decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are not applicable to the facts of the present case. - Decided against assessee Transaction and sale of land - business income OR long term capital gain - CIT(A) confirming the transaction as business income - Held that:- It is an admitted fact that during the course of search the audited books of accounts were not found. The assessee in the block return declared long term capital loss for first 2 years, i.e. A.Yrs. 1994-95 and 1995-96 whereas for A.Yrs. 1996-97 and 1997-98 the assessee declared long term capital gain. The AO considering the continuous purchase and sale of land by the assessee treated the same as adventure in nature of trade. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case and on proper appreciation of the seized documents vis-à-vis reply of the assessee from time to time has enhanced the income of the assessee by ₹ 4,75,000/-. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in absence of any material brought to our notice to take a different view. Addition u/s 68 - Held that:- ind in the instant case the AO made addition of ₹ 4 lakhs to the total income of the assessee u/s.68 on the basis of the statement recorded from the assessee that he had taken loan of ₹ 4 lakhs on different dates during F.Yrs. 1994-95 to 1997-98 in cash from Shri P.S. Puslori. We find the CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that while the AO has recorded the statement of Shri P.S. Puslori, however, the AO did not confront the same to the assessee which was utilized against the assessee. The information collected at the back of the assessee which was utilized against him was not confronted to the assessee for which the Ld.CIT(A) held that the addiction made by the AO is incorrect. Since admittedly the assessee was not confronted with the adverse findings collected by the AO at the back of the assessee, therefore the principles of natural justice have been violated. In view of the detailed reasoning given by the Ld.CIT(A) and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice against the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). - Decided against revenue Addition u/s 69 - repayment of loan - Held that:- CIT(A) after proper appreciation of the facts of the case directed the AO not to make any addition u/s.68 . However, he directed the AO to make addition of ₹ 1,01,506/- u/s.69 of the Act in absence of any plausible explanation given by the assessee towards the repayment of the above loan. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us also could not give any proper explanation nor he could explain how the order of the CIT(A) is erroneous. Since the Ld.CIT(A) on the basis of analysis of the seized document and on the basis of the various statements recorded from the assessee u/s.132(4) as well as u/s.131 has given valid reasons, therefore, in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice by either side we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). - Decided against revenue and assessee
|