|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 1558 Records
-
2017 (2) TMI 1200
CENVAT credit - capital goods - job-work - whether job worker is entitled to capital goods credit in respect of the capital goods used in the manufacture of the job-worked goods for the principal manufacturer? - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of in the case of CCE Chennai-IV Vs Kyungshin Industrial Motherson Ltd. [2015 (11) TMI 899 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that availment of Modvat Credit on capital goods to be job work is in order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1199
Application for Early hearing - the matter is remanded to the Tribunal only for the purpose of deciding the issues relating to the findings in paragraph 4.2 (iii) (iv) (v)(a) and paragraph 4.5 of the order dated 22.02.2016 of the adjudicating authority - Held that: - In view of the fact that the goods have been in the custody of the appellant for about four years, we would request the Tribunal to decide this issue preferably by 31.03.2017. - The parties shall in the first instance appear before the Tribunal on 13.02.2017 and thereafter as directed by the Tribunal. - appeal allowed.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1198
Validity of the Search Assessment completed under Section 153A - Held that:- After completion of the search, the Assessee was issued notice under Section 153A of the Act. The assessment resulted in addition of amounts under the head “Long Term Capital Gains”. The Assessee successfully contended before the ITAT that the additions were untenable because they were not based upon any material seized during the search. The ITAT upheld the additions applying the ratio of the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kabul Chawla [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
-
2017 (2) TMI 1197
Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - claiming the deduction under Section 10A - Held that:- For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee had shown the date of commencement of production in Form 56F, as 01.06.1999. The assessee had not concealed the date of production or had not made any mistake in pointing out the same. The authorities, therefore, rightly held that the assessee had not concealed anything and not stated any incorrect particulars of income in the years under consideration. The assessee had claimed the benefit under Section 10A of the Act under a bonafide belief that since the deduction was not claimed under the said provisions for the three assessment years i.e. 2006-07, 2009-10 and 2010-11, the claim for deduction in the year 2010-11, being the 9th or the 10 year, could be claimed. Both the authorities have concurrently found that claiming the deduction under Section 10A of the Act by the assesses was a bonafide mistake and the assessee had not concealed any material facts as the assessee had clearly pointed out the date of commencement of the production in Form No. 56F, as 01.06.1999. The authorities had found that since the mistake committed by the assessee was brought to the assessee's notice, the assessee unconditionally withdrew the said claim and offered the said amount as income of the relevant year and paid the tax on the same.
In the present case, the assessee has tendered an explanation which he was able to substantiate and prove to be bona fide before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1196
Additional depreciation in respect of wind mills - assessee made his claim in revised computation of income filed before the completion of the assessment proceeding - Held that:- Admittedly, the assessee had missed the bus in the opportunity provided to him by the statute by filing the revised return within the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) of the Act. However, that does not prevent the assessee from making its legitimate claims and its doors are not completely shut. The decision in the case of Goetze India Limited [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME Court ] clearly states that consideration of the valid claim of the assessee other than by way of a valid return can be entertained by the appellate authorities and more so the ITAT. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Kanpur Coal Syndicate reported in (1964 (4) TMI 18 - SUPREME Court ) had held that the powers of CIT(A) is co-terminus with that of the AO; that the First Appellate Authority has wider powers, in that “he can do what the ITO can do and can also direct him to do what he failed to do. No substantial question of law involved
-
2017 (2) TMI 1195
Assessment u/s 153A - Held that:- In the present case, the AO virtually reappreciated the materials and documents that were part of the record filed by the assessee. A plain reading of the assessment order would show that no attempt was made by the AO to connect the fresh material and how it pointed out to any concealed income or led to any concealed income. The entire reliance upon the existing documents that were disclosed only reinforced that Kabul Chawla (2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) and its reasoning was appropriately applied. For these reasons, the Court is of the opinion that the ITAT’s reasons are sound on the question of applicability of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the additions made in these circumstances could not have been sustained. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2017 (2) TMI 1194
Assessment u/s 153A - addition u/s 68 - Bogus gift received - unabated assessments - search activities - Held that:- We find from the record that the return of income was filed on 29.10.2004 whereas the search was conducted on 17.1.2008 meaning thereby the assessee for the assessment year 2004-05 had attained finality on the date of search. In terms of section 153A of the Act, the already finalised assessment can only be disturbed if the search team has found some incriminating documents or material and which was relied upon by the AO at the time of framing the assessment or the addition is made in the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Act by referring to seized material and not otherwise.
As in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (2015 (5) TMI 656 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) held that where the assessments have abated upon the issuing the notice u/s 153A of the Act the AO has original jurisdiction as well as jurisdiction under section 153A so far as assessments for six assessment years are concerned. The Hon’ble High Court further held that no addition can be made in respect of unabated assessments which have become final if no incriminating material is found during search. The facts of the assessee are identical to one as has decided by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s husband case [2015 (1) TMI 658 - ITAT MUMBAI] where the search was conducted simultaneously and the fact are identical. We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal and set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. - Decided in favour of the assessee
-
2017 (2) TMI 1193
Disallowance of capital gains - additions u/s 68 - Held that:- To bring any sum to tax u/s 68, a sum has to be credited, for such sum it is well settled law that in order to discharge the onus, the assessee must prove the identity of the creditor, capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. In the given case, the AO has brought to tax the capital gain, which is not the sum credited in the books of the assessee, secondly, the assessee has already brought on record the identity of the parties and capacities of the parties. With regard to genuineness of the transaction, assessee has brought on record the transactions as investment in another company i.e. M/s SRGEPL. All these shares were recorded in the books of account as investment. AO has not brought on record anything to suggest any suspicion on the commercial transaction in this case. The payments were made through banking channel and received sale proceeds were also through bank. When the bench asked the AR to submit the receipt of sale proceeds in the bank, the AR had submitted a copy of the bank statement and ledger copy of transactions by letter dated 29/12/2016 and it proves the genuineness of the transactions.
Thus on both counts, i.e. commercial decision of the assessee as well as genuineness of the transaction, we hold that the AO was wrong in treating this transaction as ‘income from other sources’ and making disallowance u/s 68 of the Act, instead of capital gains as offered by the assessee. We have no hesitation to uphold the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue and accordingly dismiss the ground raised by the revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee
Disallowance of salaries and recruitment expenditure - non setup of business - Held that:- The assessee has set up its business the moment it had acquired the property on lease to run the business with effect from 01/04/2007 and started recruiting the people for the suitable positions, in our view, the assessee has already set up its business and any expenditure in the nature of establishment, administrative, etc. are admissible business expenditure. Considering the nature of expenditure incurred by the assessee during the year we are inclined to agree with the findings of the CIT(A) and accordingly we uphold the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by the AO and dismiss the ground raised by the revenue.
Treatment to interest received - as capital receipt or revenue receipt - Held that:- We are in agreement with the findings of the CIT(A). the case laws relied upon by the assessee are prior to set up of the business and are earned during construction period. Whereas in the given case, assessee had already set up the business and on one hand claiming expenditure as revenue and on the other another hand claiming the income as capital in nature cannot be accepted. Therefore, the CO raised by the assessee is hereby rejected.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1192
Bogus purchases addition - Held that:- The information received from the sales tax authorities was a good starting point for making further investigation and to take it to logical end. But, he stopped at that juncture and did not collect further evidences. While making the disallowance of entire purchases, he did not doubt the sales made by the assessee. As per the established principles of tax jurisprudence no sales can be affected without purchases. Therefore, in our opinion there was no justification in disallowing the entire purchases. By producing the bank statement and stock statement, the assessee has discharged the burden cast upon her. We find that in all the cases, relied upon by the assessee, the Tribunal has held that where the AO accepts the sale made by the assessee, he cannot reject the entire purchases. It is true that the FAA has rejected the books, but, he has not given any reason for the rejection of the same. We would also like to mention that the FAA had without assigning any reason had disturbed the profit rates shown by the assessee. He should have called for an explanation of the assessee about fall in the GP for the year under consideration. There can be several reasons for variation in profit rates, so, only on that basis results of audited book should not be disturbed. - Decided in favour of the assessee.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1191
Disallowance of salary expenses - increase in salary is manyfold, but there is decrease in turnover during the year - Held that:- CIT (Appeals) considering the submissions of the assessee and the findings of the assessing officer deleted the addition observing that assessing officer has not doubted the fact of payment of salary and that there was no allegation that these employees are relatives of assessee or they are covered under 40A(2)(b) of the Act, the assessing officer has only disallowed these expenses observing that there was no commensurate increase in turnover. Before the ld. CIT (Appeals), the assessee relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Walchand and Co.(P) Ltd. [1967 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court] as held that the rule that increased remuneration can only be justified if there is corresponding increase in the profits of the employer was erroneous. It is the finding of the ld. CIT (Appeals) that the assessee has demonstrated that these expenses were actually incurred which are evidenced from the bank statement and the confirmations from the employees and even the assessing officer has not doubted the fact of incurring of expenses. In the circumstances, we do not see any valid reason to disallow the said expenses. We agree with the view of the ld. CIT (Appeals).- Decided against revenue
Assessability of rental income - income from letting out of the properties - income from house property OR income from other sources - Held that:- The issue has been considered by the tribunal in the assessment year 2008-09 and it was held that lease rent in respect of the property situated in Village Kolkhe, Taluk Panvel, District Raigad (within the limits of gram panchayat Kolkhe) should be assessed under the head Income from House Property. Thus we direct the assessing officer to assess the rental income in respect of the said properties under the head Income from House Property. The grounds raised by the revenue on this issue are rejected.
Restricting the notional income from house properties on the unoccupied house properties - Held that:- From the perusal of the assessment order, we find that the assessing officer said to have estimated the rental values for the vacant properties looking at the location and area of the property. However, assessing officer did not cite any instances of similar properties deriving rent where the rental income is similar to the estimated value in respect of the properties of the assessee. We find that the ld. CIT (Appeals) has estimated the rental value of the current assessment year based on actual rent received by the assessee during the assessment year 2015-16. The ld. CIT (Appeals) has taken similar values of rental income of the assessment year 2015-16 for the current assessment year i.e.2010-11 and arrived at the rental value at ₹ 7,79,658/- which in our opinion is reasonable and has some basis. Therefore, we sustain the valuation arrived at by the ld. CIT(Appeals). The grounds raised by the revenue on this issue are rejected.
Notional interest from security deposit while computing the rental income - Held that:- Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of JK Investors (2000 (6) TMI 9 - BOMBAY High Court ) held that section 23(1)(b) of the I.T. Act provides that when actual rent received is more than the fair rent the actual rent would be the annual value and therefore the notional interest would not form part of actual rent received or receivable under section 23(1)(b) of I.T.Act. Therefore respectfully following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court we hold that notional interest should not form part of annual value. This ground of the revenue is rejected.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1190
Un-recorded and un-reconciled traded transaction entered by the assessee as per certificate from BSE vis-à-vis books of accounts maintained by the assessee - addition made based upon AIR information - Held that:- We in principle agree with the reasoning given by the learned CIT(A) in his appellate order dated 26.12.2011 while sustaining the assessment order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act that AIR information cannot be simply brushed aside and onus is on the assessee to have reconciled the same instead of merely denying the same. It was incumbent on the assessee herself to have taken-up with BSE directly to clarify as to how un-recorded transaction of ₹ 7,52,65,347/- was reflected against her name in BSE portal . No such efforts seems to have been made by the assessee which is brought on record except simple denial by the assessee which is not sufficient to discharge the burden cast on the assessee.
At the same time, we have also observed that the assessee has earned net profit of 0.59% on the undisputed traded transactions recorded in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee, which net profit ratio of 0.59% on recorded transactions was accepted by Revenue while framing assessment order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act of 1961. In our view the end of substantial and complete justice will be met in the instant appeal keeping in view peculiar facts of the case, if un-recorded transaction in the books of accounts which is reported by BSE to have been entered by the assessee to the tune of ₹ 7,52,65,347/- is also brought to tax by estimating net profit @ 0.59% on ₹ 7,52,65,347/-, wherein income is sustained/confirmed in the hands of the assessee to the tune of ₹ 4,44,066/- and rest of the addition stand deleted. We order accordingly.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1189
Disallowance of expenses as not verifiable - Held that:- CIT(A) rightly held that the AO on estimation of 5% disallowance is not back by any logical reasoning or comparable cases. CIT(A) has also given a findings that the assessee has maintained and submitted the details of the husk puyrchaed during the year in terms of weighment slip details of farmers etc. At the same time given that certain purchases are not being properly supported with the required additional evidences he restricted the disallowance to ₹ 10,00,000/- being 26% of the total disallowance made by the AO. Similar disallowances have been made in the A.Y. 2011-12 where by following the same reasoning, AO has disallowed 5% of the expenses which were restricted to ₹ 7 lacs by the ld. CIT(A)and the revenue is apparently not in appeal against the said order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same has attained finality. In the facts and circumstances of the case given that the addition have been made purely on adhoc basis. At the same time given the fact that some of the expenses are not supported by proper evidences. The Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to a reasonable level.
Disallowance of 5% of the Hammali expenses - Held that:- The addition has been made against on purely adhoc basis without highlighting as a specific defect in the claim of the case, we do not see any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) who has restricted a disallowance to ₹ 1 lac. Hence we hereby confirmed the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
Disallowance of 5% of the loading vehicle expenses - Held that:- As in the preceding year, in the assessee’s own case have decided the same in favour of the assessee. Since it is seen that no independent verification was carried out by the AO to justify his action and his estimation is not backed by either any logical reasoning or factual verifications, the addition of the amount of ₹ 37,172/- is accordingly directed to be deleted. This ground of appeal is treated as allowed.
Addition u/s 36(1)(va) on account of late payment of employees contribution to P.F. - Held that:- The decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High court in the case of CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Udpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. [2014 (8) TMI 677 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] has held that since the assessee has paid employees contribution towards PF before the due date of filing of the return the same is allowable u/s 43B of the IT Act. The Hon’ble High Court has held in its decision that whether employee and employees contribution are paid before the due date of filing of the return of income u/s 133(9) no disallowance can be made u/s 43B or u/s 36(1)(va). In the instant case it is not in dispute that the subject payments have been made before 30.09.2012 being the due date of filing of the return of income u/a 139 of the Act. Thus no disallowance could be made - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2017 (2) TMI 1188
Addition made on account of disallowance of electricity expenses - Held that:- After heating both the sides and perusal of materials on record, we observed that the assessee has made payment by cheque to the torrent power company limited towards the power bills and we have also noted the finding of the learned CIT appeal stating that assessing officer has not made any adverse remarks over the submission of the assessee made during the appellant proceedings before the learned CIT appeal. In view of these facts , we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the learned CIT appeal. - Decided against revenue
Addition u/s 68 - Held that:- After perusal of the above information and findings of the ld. CIT(A), that identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of all the four parties have been established by the assessee, we do not find any reason to interfere in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). The appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1187
Deduction u/s 80IB(10) - Held that:- The reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer and noticed in this order have not been approved by the Hon’ble High Court’s in the case of Radhe Developers (2011 (12) TMI 248 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) for denying the benefit on ground that the assesse did not develop the project as developer rather worked as a contractor. It can be inferred from the material available on record and discussed by the Ld. first Appellant authority, that assessee has developed the project as developer. - Decided against revenue
-
2017 (2) TMI 1186
Computing exemption profit u/s. 10B - Held that:- On identical issue hon’ble high court of Karnataka in the CIT vs. Tata Elexi Ltd [2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] held that while computing deduction u/s. 10A if export turnover numerator is to be arrived at after excluding certain expenses, such expenses are also to be excluded in computing export turnover as a component of total turnover in denominator.
The components of the export turnover in the numerator and the denominator cannot be different. After considering the legal findings supra, we find that on principle of parity if export freight excluded from export turn-over and the same also ought to be excluded from total turnover while computing exempted profit u/s. 10B of the act therefore, we allow the appeal of the assessee.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1185
Revision u/s 263 - Lack of inquiry - Held that:- On the issue of provisions of section 50C applicability AO has apparently not applied his mind to the applicability of the provisions of section 50 C of the income tax act to the sale consideration shown by the assessee when the sale deed was also available before him where the fair market value of the property was shown as 58.75 lakhs. In view of this we are of the opinion that Ld. assessing officer has not conducted any Inquiry on this aspect of the computation of capital gain and therefore the order of the Ld. assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on this count.
With respect to the claim of the long-term capital loss shown by the assessee on per usual of query letter dated 13/07/2009 issued by the Ld. assessing officer he has asked the details of loss of ₹ 36.75 lakhs claimed by the assessee while computing the long term capital gains. Further there is no evidence on record that the Ld. assessing officer before allowing the set-off has considered whether the loss shown by the assessee in assessment year 2006 2007 is allowable as set-off during the year or not. The Ld. CIT has further stated that only on 02/06/2008 the principal Corporation of Google was constituted and further the certificate obtained by the assessee dated 7 07/04/2015 also shows that during the course of original assessment proceedings for assessment year 2007 – 08 the issue was not at all examined whether the impugned land sold in assessment year 2006 – 07 was situated within 8 km or beyond 8 km of the limits of the municipal corporation. Therefore, according to us the assessing officer has allowed the set-off of the loss to the assessee without examining the facts at all.
With respect to the capital gain on sale of shares of a company assessing officer has allowed the claim of the assessee under section 10 (38) of the income tax act without examining whether the security transaction tax has been paid on the sale of the shares or not. The query letter as relied upon by AR only shows that the assessing officer has enquired about the details about acquisition of those source and mode of payment for acquisition of the same as well as evidence for sale of shares and mode of receipt of sale proceeds. According to us these are not the necessary enquiries to be made for the purpose of exemption to be granted to the assessee under section 10 (38) of the income tax act. In view of this the order of the Ld. assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue to that extent.
In the present case the assessment proceedings conducted by the Ld. assessing officer clearly falls within the parameters of “Lack of inquiry.” Therefore there cannot be any fault found with the order of the Ld. CIT in assuming his jurisdiction under section 263 of the income tax act. In view of our above finding we dismiss the appeal of the assessee challenging the order of Ld. CIT under section 263 of the income tax act. - Decided against assessee
-
2017 (2) TMI 1184
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition made on specific issue pertaining to bogus purchases made by the assessee - Held that:- We find that the substantive addition made in this case was not on estimated basis but was made specifically on the indulgence of mal-practices and bogus purchases committed by the assessee. We do not inclined with the submission of the assessee that the penalty was levied on the estimated additions. The assessee failed to substantiate and justify its explanation as per the obligation cast upon it by the Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c).
Keeping in view the concrete findings as elaborated supra which elucidate that assessee was indeed indulged in bogus purchases and availed the CENVAT benefit fraudulently. This estimation was not made on the basis of unverifiable transactions but the estimation of income was based on specific transactions carried out fraudulently and proved as bogus with supporting material evidences found in the case of assessee. These facts clearly establish that the assessee has concealed particulars of in income, therefore, in view of the above mentioned facts and findings, we disincline to interfere in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). - Decided against assessee
-
2017 (2) TMI 1183
Revision u/s 263 - whether the order of the AO is open to attack as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue in terms of section 263 of the Act when the STCGs returned by the assessee has been accepted by the AO in the given facts? - Held that:- AO has noted that necessary details and evidences thereof have been furnished by the assessee. In the circumstances, it is difficult to accept the allegation that the action of the AO was without requisite enquiry and application of mind on facts. Possibly, the CIT is not happy with the quality of the outcome on the enquiry. However, this by itself would not give occasion to the CIT to pass order under s.263 of the Act. On facts, we note from the order of the CIT itself that the assessee has maintained separate records whereby intention to hold certain shares as capital assets as compared to other class of trading assets of similar nature can be deciphered. This act of the assessee by itself is a strong indicator of the declaration of the underlying intention of the assessee. We also take note of the fact that Circular No.4 of 2007 dated 15/06/2007 issued by the CBDT clearly lays down that it is possible for a taxpayer to have two types of portfolios simultaneously, i.e. an investment and trading portfolio. We simultaneously note that substantial majority of the transactions giving rise to the capital gains are mere resale of shares acquired in the initial public offer for allotment of shares by companies.
Thus, shares were acquired in the primary market and sold in the secondary market after obtaining delivery thereof. The transactions involving purchase and sales are limited in number and does not indicate any continuous and systematic course of activity or conduct with set purpose. We observe that the manner in which the books of accounts are kept is an important piece of evidence for determination of the factual issue in hand. The shares held at the end of the year towards investment has also not been shown to be valued at cost or market price whichever is lower. We also notice that the investments giving rise to the capital gains are not driven primarily by the borrowed funds which were claimed to be not obtained on commercial basis. In these facts, the action of the AO accepting the capital gain declared by the assessee as such cannot be faulted per se. The view of the AO on the issue is clearly a plausible view which in our view cannot be toppled and substituted by the opinion of the CIT in this regard.- Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1182
Claim of long term capital gain - examining cost of acquisition, cost of improvement - treatment to sale as giving rise to short term capital gain under section 50A - Held that:- As evident from the observations made by the Assessing Officer in the first round of proceedings, the Assessing Officer had accepted the expenses shown by the assessee and there were no disputes in this regard. The short point on which the matter was sent to the file of the Assessing Officer was with respect to verification about depreciation and whether sale in question is to give rise to taxability under section 50A or section 48. Once Assessing Officer holds that the sale gives rise to taxability under section 48 as long term capital gains, the matter ends there. It was no longer open to him to examine the details about cost of acquisition and cost of improvement which were examined and accepted in the first round. In considered view, the Assessing Officer exceeded his brief in this i.e. second round of proceedings.
In view of the above discussions, vacate the Assessing Officer’s order on these points and, therefore, delete the impugned addition. The assessee gets the relief accordingly.
-
2017 (2) TMI 1181
Addition of undisclosed income - non granting an opportunity to the assessee to cross – examine Held that:- We find that the assessee in response to the show cause notice issued by the AO has submitted that he has given the address of the parties earlier and the AO may confirm with the parties by using the power vested in the Act. This has been 7 mentioned by the AO at para 9.3 (page 4-5) of the assessment order. It is also found that the assessee vide written submission dated 29.04.2014 has submitted before the learned CIT(A) that the name and address of the flat buyers were given to the AO as required and at the repeated request of the assessee, the AO did not confront with the flat buyers that they had paid cash to the assessee, over and above the agreement value. Before us, the learned counsel of the assessee submitted that specific request was made to the AO to issue summons to the purchasers.
In State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Grocery Dealer [1977 (3) TMI 160 - SUPREME COURT ] SC recognised the importance of oral evidence by holding that the opportunity to prove the correctness or completeness of the return necessarily carry with it the right to examine the witnesses and that includes equally the right to cross – examine witnesses.
The contentious issues in the instant appeal can be resolved by examining the flat buyers and granting an opportunity to the assessee to cross – examine them. Therefore, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the same to the file of the AO to make a fresh 8 assessment as per the provisions of the Act after examining the flat buyers and granting an opportunity to the assessee to cross – examine them - Decided n favour of assessee for statistical purpose.
............
|
9911796707
