|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 1081 Records
-
2021 (5) TMI 861 - ITAT DELHI
Charging maximum marginal rate - Charitable society - validity of action of the CPC in calculating the tax at Maximum Marginal rates instead of the slab rates - non claiming any exemption u/s. 11/12/10(23C)(iiiad)/10(23C)(vi) as the society is neither registered u/s. 12A nor approved u/s. 10 (23C) (vi) - infirmity/defect in filing of ITR before processing the return u/s. 143(1) - it is the contention of the assessee that the assessee's society is not registered u/s. 12A of the Act, is not approved u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad) and 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. It is also contended that CPC failed to give an opportunity in terms of Section 139(9) of the Act - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has held in favour of the assessee claim of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) is not allowable since the aggregate receipts exceed ₹ 1 Crore (Rule 2BC of the Income Tax Rules, 1962). Further, in the return of income it has been mentioned that the assessee is not registered under section 12A and no other details regarding registration under any other Act has been given. Since exemption has not been claimed under sections 11 and 12 and no details regarding registration under the Societies Registration Act have been given in the return of income, there appears to be no infirmity in the action of the CPC in calculating tax at the maximum marginal rate instead of the slab rate.
Revenue could not rebut the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has taken contradictory view. I therefore, considering the totality of facts of the present case hold that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in taking contrary stand in this case of the assessee. Hence, the Assessing Officer is hereby directed to charge tax at normal rates.
-
2021 (5) TMI 860 - ITAT MUMBAI
Unexplained expenditure u/s. 68 - unexplained expenditure taxed u/s. 69C v/s unexplained cash credit to be taxed u/s.68 - AO observed in the assessment order that as per information available on record, it showed that one Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh is an entry operator and had provided various bogus accommodation entries for commission through his erstwhile companies/partnership firms and proprietorship concerns - HELD THAT:- We find that the Revenue had not brought any evidence on record as to who Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh is and how he is connected with the assessee herein. The primary onus has been duly discharged by the assessee by stating that he does not know who Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh is and assessee had also specifically stated in writing that there are no business dealings with Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh. While this is so, the primary onus has been discharged duly by the assessee, the onus shifts back to the ld. AO who is duty bound to provide all the necessary evidences/materials that are available with him vis-à-vis the assessee thereon and confront the assessee with those evidences, if any, linking the assessee.
Addition has been made by the AO towards unexplained expenditure u/s. 68 - As per the provisions of the Act, the unexplained expenditure will get taxed u/s. 69C of the Act and unexplained cash credit will get taxed u/s. 68 - The requirement of these two sections are totally separate and distinct. Moreover, the ld. AO had also observed in his assessment order that during the course of search and seizure action conducted in the case of Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh u/s. 132(1) of the Act, it was found that he was an entry operator and had provided bogus accommodation entries to various beneficiaries for earning commission income through his entities. Nowhere in the assessment order, the ld. AO had brought on record with supporting evidences that whether the assessee had received any loans or had received any accommodation bills from Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh
Also the nature of transaction is also not mentioned in the assessment order; whether the same is payment or receipt is also not discernible from the assessment order. When all these points were duly pointed out before the ld. CIT(A), we find that the ld. CIT(A) had not even bothered to address any of the issues but merely relied on various case laws that are totally irrelevant to the facts of the issue and proceeded to confirm the addition made thereon. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 859 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI BENCH
Seeking Extension of the Liquidation Process of the Corporate Debtor - Regulation 44(2) of The IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 r/w Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The prescribed period for completing the Liquidation Process needs to be extended. The present IA deserves to be allowed partly.
Consequently, the liquidation period is extended by six months from the date of the Order. Further the period consumed during the lockdown period has to be excluded/exempted from counting the period prescribed for Liquidation period by following the suo moto decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION [2021 (5) TMI 564 - SC ORDER] by extending/exempting the period from 15th March 2020 till 14th March 21 and again now until further order.
Application allowed in part.
-
2021 (5) TMI 858 - ITAT MUMBAI
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 in respect of loan received - HELD THAT:- As documentary evidences submitted by the assessee before the lower authorities which had been summarily brushed aside by the lower authorities in the reassessment proceedings and also respectfully following the decision of this Tribunal in assessee's own case in the first round of appellate proceedings [2017 (10) TMI 1567 - ITAT MUMBAI] we deem it fit and appropriate in the interest of justice and fair play, to remand this appeal to the file of the ld. AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2021 (5) TMI 857 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income taxable in India - Income accrued or deemed to accrues/arise in India - taxability under the DAPE - Permanent Establishment (PE) - 'Royalties' on substantive basis - Addition both under the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement entered into between India and USA - computing the taxable income of alleged DAPE - HELD THAT:- The issue in appeal is covered in favour of the assessee by a co-ordinate bench decision in the case of ADIT vs Asia Today Ltd [2021 (2) TMI 95 - ITAT MUMBAI] inasmuch as the very basis of taxability in the impugned appeal is existence of the dependent agency permanent establishment [DAPE, in short] but then, as held in the case of Asia Today (supra), the existence of a DAPE is wholly tax neutral
As no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the co-ordinate bench. In this view of the matter, and having regard to the undisputed position vide TPO’s order that the transactions in question were at arm’s length price, no taxability survives in the hands of the assessee. Once basic taxability under the DAPE itself comes to an end, all other issues raised in the appeal are rendered academic and infructuous
-
2021 (5) TMI 856 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Dismissal of appeal of the assessee because the appeals were filed against the Draft Assessment Orders and not against the final assessment order passed pursuant to the Draft Assessment Order - DR argued stating that the assessee is entitled to appeal against the final assessment order passed pursuant to the draft assessment order passed by the TPO and not against the Draft Assessment Order passed by the TPO as per the provisions of the Act - HELD THAT:- We do not find any error in the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) because as submitted by the Ld. DR the provisions of section 246A r.w.s. 144C makes it clear that the final assessment order passed by the Ld. AO pursuant to the Draft Assessment Order passed by the TPO U/s. 144C of the Act is only appealable before the Ld. CIT(A) which the Ld. AR could not controvert. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue and therefore, we hereby sustain the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for both the A.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09.
-
2021 (5) TMI 855 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- Reliance can be placed in the case of Mobilox Innovations Private Limited vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (9) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that There is a pre-existing dispute between the parties which is evident from the email correspondence between the parties which was produced before this Adjudicating Authority by the Corporate Debtor along with its Counter. The Corporate Debtor had duly replied to the demand notice of the Operational Creditor and the disputes between them are pointed out in its reply.
In view of the Apex Court's observation and the existence of dispute between the parties, this Adjudicating Authority has to reject the application - application dismissed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 854 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , INDORE BENCH
Winding up of the company - substratum of the company has been completely lost - Section 271 (e) read with Section 272 (1) (b) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the record, it is found that the company did not have any long term borrowings. Further, the Balance Sheet of the company as on 31.03.2017, it reflects that there are losses and the same trend is continuing and in the year 2017-18 the turnover of the company from business operation as reflected as 'NIL' due to recurring expenses of the company. Thus, as against the total liability as on 31.03.2018 is ₹ 32,40,81,282/-, whereas the total assets of the company is ₹ 1,53,25,517/-, which is not sufficient to completely settle the liabilities of the company, since the operations of the company is completely closed down after April 2011 - On perusal of the record, it is found that since there are no business activities in the company, there is no effective meetings of the Board of Directors and the shareholders of the company are being taken place, as such, there is no effective filing of annual return as well as there is no effective filing of statutory returns before the RoC and no effective return under the Income Tax, Commercial Tax, Service Tax, Central Excise, or any other law are being filed - Looking to the Balance Sheet of the company, it appears that there is no possibility for the company to restart any business activities. The Commercial Tax Department has also cancelled the registration of the company due to piled up tax liabilities and also took notional possession of the fixed assets of the company to recover the outstanding.
It clearly reveals that for the object for which the company was started has totally failed and that the substratum of the company has been eroded and there are/were no meeting of the shareholders, members of board, etc. is being held in the recent past and no statutory returns have been filed and there is no possibility of revival of the company, as such, it is a fit case to pass an order on just and equitable ground for winding up of the respondent company.
Petition allowed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 853 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained share capital addition - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that both the lower authorities decline to accept the assessee's share capital in involving 42 investors. It is an admitted fact that of these 42 parties have duly filed confirmations both in the course of assessment as well as remand proceedings. The assessee has also submitted a detailed paper book before us running into more than 200 pages comprising of all the details of the said 42 investor parties.
This is not the Revenue's case that the assessee had failed to prove identity of investors in the course of factual verification. The Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) have observed that the said investors land holdings are very much disproportionate to the corresponding share capital money. Learned department representative failed to indicate the so called disproportionate investment qua the share capital investors' land holdings
Apart from merely making sweeping remarks, neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) have examined the assessee's detailed evidences as well as the confirmations from all the remaining parties on merits. We thus conclude in this factual matrix that the impugned unexplained share capital addition made in respect of the assessee's 42 investor parties does not deserve to be upheld. The same is directed to be deleted for this precise reason only. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (5) TMI 852 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Levy of Interest - carry forward of excess credit - penalty - the amount was reversed on being pointed out - time limitation of paying interest - HELD THAT:- Admittedly there was mistake on the part of the Appellant in carrying forward in their Books of Accounts the closing balance of CENVAT credit for the month of August 2008, while switching from ERP to SAP system w.e.f 01/09/2008, in the opening balance for the month of Sep. 2008. When such mistake was pointed out by the audit team while scrutiny of their records in Sep. 2009, the Appellant immediately reversed the entire credit on 10/09/2009 accepting the lapse on their part but failed to pay applicable interest on the excess credit availed - In the present case, the Appellant reversed the credit in September 2009 but since failed to discharge the interest of the same, consequently, within a period of one year, the interest was demanded from the Appellant by issuing a notice to the Appellant. Hence, the demand for interest is not barred by limitation.
Levy of penalty equivalent to the amount of Cenvat Credit reversed - HELD THAT:- It is not warranted in the facts of the circumstances of the present case as it was a bona fide mistake of carrying forward excess credit as on 01/09/2008 on account of switching over from ERP to SAP system. There is no other allegation or evidence brought on record by the revenue that intentionally and purposefully the Appellant had shown wrong opening balance thereby continued to enjoy excess credit for a period of time till it is pointed out by the audit. Therefore, imposition of penalty equal to the amount of credit availed cannot be sustained.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2021 (5) TMI 851 - ITAT DELHI
Estimation of income - books of accounts of the assessee were rejected and provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act were invoked - Addition is sustained by the ld. CIT (A) based on the findings of the ld. CIT (A) in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2010-11 wherein the profit @ 5% on the turnover was estimated - HELD THAT:- In the present case the addition is also based on the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) for assessment year 2010-11. This order has now been restored back to the ld AO for that year. Therefore, looking to the facts that when additions are confirmed on the basis of the order of ld CIT (A) for earlier years which has already been sent back to the ld AO for fresh decision, there is no reason that why this year should also not be restored back to the file of the ld AO for fresh assessment . SO, we also set aside this appeal with similar direction to the file of the Assessing Officer. Needless to say that the assessee is to show correct income with cogent material before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the solitary ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction.
Excess opening stock - Addition of difference in the opening stock as well as the closing stock - HELD THAT:- AO did not care to consider that whether the assessee is having the above stock as actual stock with the assessee and if so what is the source of investment for the above stock. The Assessing Officer has not even examined the source of stock nor was such stock found during the course of survey on 17.09.2013 and 29.09.2013. No purchase vouchers or details were also found during the course of survey. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) and thus, the solitary ground of appeal of the ld. Assessing Officer is dismissed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 850 - ITAT SURAT
Income from house property - estimating rental income from the unsold fifty five shops u/s 23 which is assessee’s stock in trade - scope of newly inserted sub- section (5) of section 23 - HELD THAT:- Assessee was treating the property as 'stock-in-trade'. It is also clear from the records that, except for the eight unsold shops, which has been let out by the assessee for the time being on temporary basis, all other forty five unsold shops were used by the assessee for his business storage purposes.
We note that assessee has constructed buildings/ projects and these projects were treated as stock in trade in the books of accounts of the assessee society. The income arising on its sale is liable to be taxed as business income. The Shops and Flats already sold by the assessee were assessed under the head ‘income from business’.
Therefore, the unsold fifty five shops should be treated as ‘stock in trade. As assessee`s case under consideration is relating to assessment year 2013-14 whereas the newly inserted sub- section (5) of section 23, as noted above, was inserted by the Finance Act 2017 w.e.f. 1-4-2018, therefore it does not apply to the assessee under consideration.
No justification in the order of assessing officer for estimating rental income from these unsold fifty five shops under section 23 of the Act, which is assessee’s stock in trade as at the end of the year. Hence, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the Assessing Officer in any manner and hence the addition so made should be deleted. Accordingly, the assessing officer is directed to delete the addition, made by him, estimating letting value of the unsold fifty five shops, under section 23 - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (5) TMI 849 - CESTAT CHENNAI
CENVAT Credit - capital goods - capital goods were not received into the factory - Penalty - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the final order dated 20-5-2011, the Tribunal has directed officers to visit the assessee’s factory and satisfy themselves as to the availability of the Spectrometer in question. After such verification, it is seen noted in the de novo adjudication order that the capital goods were present in the factory. Thus the allegations raised in the Show Cause Notice that the capital goods were not received in the factory and that the credit availed is wrong is without any factual basis. Further, it can also be seen that the appellant had challenged before the Tribunal the allegation of wrong availment of credit and submitted only that they would not be seeking re-credit of the same for the reason that they had already surrendered the registration of the factory. The authorities below have confirmed the interest on the basis that the appellant has not challenged the demand of wrongfully availed credit.
The allegation in the Show Cause Notice is that the assessee did not bring the machine into the factory and suppressed the purchase and receipt of the machine in their factory for which the Show Cause Notice was issued. This allegation is now proved to be wrong after the verification by the Range Officer. In such circumstances, allegation of wrong availment of credit cannot sustain and therefore, the interest thereon also would not sustain. The penalty has already been set aside by the authorities below.
The demand of interest by the department alleging wrong availment of credit cannot sustain - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (5) TMI 848 - DELHI HIGH COURT
TP Adjustment - Compensation received on demerger of its mobile segment business - petitioner’s case that, since in the second order passed by the TPO, dated 31.01.2021, this aspect was left open for examination by the AO, the AO could not have taken recourse to the provisions of Section 92CA(4) of the Act, and made the addition without giving an opportunity to explain its stand - HELD THAT:- We tend to agree with the contentions made by petitioner. Since, the matter requires further examination, issue notice.
Revenue accepts service on behalf of the respondents/revenue. Counter-affidavit will be filed within three weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, will be filed before the next date of hearing.
-
2021 (5) TMI 847 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Faceless assessment u/s 144B - Approval of personal hearing - HELD THAT:- Once an assessee [i.e., the petitioner, in this case] requests for a personal hearing, the officer in-charge, under the provisions of clause (viii) of Section 144B(7) of the Act, would have to, ordinarily, grant a personal hearing.
In any event, since Ms. Malhotra is not able to inform us as to whether steps under sub-clause (h) of Section 144B(7)(xii) of the Act have been taken by respondent no. 1, we are inclined, at least at this stage, to agree with the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
Accordingly, issue notice. Ms. Malhotra accepts service on behalf of the respondents/revenue.
-
2021 (5) TMI 846 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - application of criminal law in the absence of mens-rea - validity of the demand notice issued by the respondent - HELD THAT:- The complaint filed by the respondent, supported by the relevant documents i.e. three original dishonoured cheques, demand notice and reply to the demand notice given by the petitioner, do make out the ingredients of Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
It is not the case of the petitioner that the ingredients of Section 138 of the N.I. Act are not made out and, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and the complaint itself not maintainable. Though Section 138 NI Act penalizes the dishonour of cheque, yet dishonour of cheque by itself is not an offence under Section 138 and to become an offence the ingredients are required to be fulfilled - the stage of taking cognizance of an offence upon receiving a complaint precedes the examination of complainant and his witness under Section 200 Cr.P.C. It is thus incorrect to say that the cognizance of offence upon receiving a complaint of facts constituting such offence is taken only after examination of the complainant and his witness present, if any on oath. The preliminary statement of the complainant and his witness in attendance is recorded only with a view to decide taking further steps in the complaint, like issuance of process for securing the presence of the accused.
There is no denying the proposition that in a case involving the dispute purely of a civil nature, the criminal law cannot be set in motion but, it is equally well settled that certain offences like the offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust, criminal misappropriation and offence under section 138 of the NI Act do arise out of the civil transactions and if the ingredients of offence/offences are made out, criminal law too can be set in motion alongside the civil remedy for resolution of the dispute - Generally, in the criminal law, mens rea is an essential component of crime but dishonour of cheque is a criminal offence where there is no need to prove a mens rea. The offence under Section 138 would be made out only if the dishonoured cheque is drawn by the drawer in favour of the drawee for discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability. Essentially, there is element of civil liability between the drawer and drawee of the cheque but if the ingredients of Section 138 are made out, it is a criminal offence to be tried in the manner provided under Section 142 of the NI Act.
The conclusion that the complaint filed by the respondent and the impugned summoning order issued by the trial court are fully in consonance with law and do not deserve to be interfered with in exercise of inherent jurisdiction vested in this court by Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. - Petition dismissed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 845 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - Suit against the respondents for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the appellant over the suit schedule property - HELD THAT:- Since the appellant is seeking temporary injunction against the respondents contending that he is in possession of the suit schedule property, the burden is on the appellant to first establish that he continues to be in possession of the suit schedule property. Such possession in respect of agricultural land is normally reflected in the Village pahanies - Even according to the appellant, the column dealing with possession in Village pahani dt.25.06.2019 in respect of the subject property shows the names of the respondents and not the name of the appellant.
The instant suit has been filed on 06.07.2020, long after the respondents obtained the interim injunction orders on 06.09.2019 in IA No.682 of 2019 in OS No. 108 of 2019 - On the pretext that there is no mention of delivery of possession in Ex.P1 Agreement of Sale, it is not open to the appellant to contend that he continued to be in possession particularly when such alleged possession is not supported by revenue records such as pahanies.
The Court below did not commit any error in refusing to grant temporary injunction in favour of the appellant - Appeal dismissed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 844 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Change of opinion or not - Benefit of doubt - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is bound to establish the reasons stated for reopening of assessment. Certain intricacies raised by the Department with reference to certain transactions are to be adjudicated in the manner known to law and the High Court cannot go into the details of such transactions so as to make a finding, which would cause prejudice to either of the parties. Such accounting transactions are to be scrutinised by the experts and such an exercise cannot be done by the High Court more specifically in a writ proceedings wherein, the very initiation of proceedings for reopening of assessment is under challenge.
Even the benefit of doubt in this regard should be held in favour of the Revenue and not in favour of the assessee. Even in case where the petitioners are raising certain doubts regarding the reason to believe and if the Department arrives certain reasons in respect of factual aspects and the informations provided or the income disclosed then the High Court must in all fairness allow the Department to conduct an adjudication by affording opportunity to the assessee, so as to conclude the proceedings, and in this regard, it is to be reiterated that the benefit of doubt in certain factual aspects must be held in favour of the Revenue and not in favour of the assessee. This being the principles to be adopted, this Court has no hesitation in arriving a conclusion that there is reason to believe for reopening of assessment and the reasons furnished by the Department can not be construed as change of opinion.
-
2021 (5) TMI 843 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - pre-existing liability - Rebuttal of presumption - acquittal of the accused - offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - merely for the reason that the first respondent has admitted his signature on the Ext.P1 cheque, whether that would automatically invite the invocation of presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I.Act? - HELD THAT:- Once the execution of the cheque is admitted or proved, necessarily it is the legal consequence that the complainant is entitled to draw the presumption under the above said sections. Then only the accused/first respondent is expected to discharge the burden and rebut the presumptions that are drawn against him. Here certainly, the first respondent has denied the execution of the cheque. In other words, he has denied any money transaction with the appellant. Now the remaining question is whether the cheque is proved to have been executed by the first respondent.
The prosecution should be able to establish their case on their own. The lapses on the part of the defence cannot be made advantage by the prosecution. Similarly, there is no substance in the contention that the appellant did not state the details of the transaction etc. By numerous authorities, it has been stated that such details are not necessary to be stated in the complaint. If it is proved that the cheque was executed and issued by the first respondent/accused in discharge of a legally enforceable liability, then the appellant is entitled to draw the presumptions. But here, the appellant has inherent weaknesses in his case. All the same, even if there are lapses in the defence version that cannot be taken use of by the appellant. Here the appellant has not established that the cheque was issued in a transaction as alleged by him and therefore, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act cannot be drawn in favour of the appellant.
The facts of the case vis-a-vis the facts of the authorities relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant are clearly distinguishable. Here the very case of the first respondent is that he had not borrowed any amount from the appellant nor the Ext.P1 was given to the appellant - the appellant could not establish that there was long standing acquaintance between them which prompted him to lend so much money to the first respondent. In the circumstances and in the absence of fool proof evidence, he cannot be entitled to draw the presumptions.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 842 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Disallowance of expenses - Allowable business expenses - AO granted 50% relief and held that the assessee had not submitted the detailed statement of expenditure with supporting material before the Tribunal - HELD THAT:- AO was of the prima facie view that the assessee would have incurred expenses under various heads mentioned by them. The assessee has to be fully blamed for inviting such a finding. Had they produced relevant documents to justify the expenditure claimed by them, which, according to them, were towards vessel handling charges, traveling and conveyance allowances, labour charges, secretarial expenses, postage and courier, then, in all probabilities, the assessee might have got relief before the Tribunal.
The second aspect is that before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee did not effectively contest the matter though they were represented by an authorized representative, who appeared to have given an explanation, which, in all probabilities, did not appeal to the First Appellate Authority and he had stated that the authorized representative had no explanation as to why additions made were incorrect or excessive. Only before the Tribunal, the assessee had taken up the matter seriously and they have been able to convince the Tribunal for two of the three issues required to be remanded.
Considering all and since the Assessing Officer has to reconsider two of the issues, we would like the Assessing Officer to look into the issue relating to other expenses claimed by the assessee for 50% of disallowance. If the assessee is able to produce documents, the Assessing Officer shall consider the same and redo the assessment along with the other two issues, which have been remanded to him by the Tribunal.
............
|
