Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1095 - AT - Income TaxDeciding the case ex parte U/s 144 - Held that:- The assessee’s attitude was totally non-cooperative with the department as evident from the number of dates for hearing given by the Assessing Officer. The assessee had never produced the books of account before the Assessing Officer as claimed by him, which has been confirmed by the ld CIT(A). Both the authorities cannot be held irresponsible when assessee’s conduct shows that he had not produced books of account in given time before the Assessing Officer. The assessee’s claimed that he had submitted books of account on 27/12/2010 does not serve any purpose as the case was going to barred by limitation on 30/12/2010 - Decided against assessee. Trading addition - estimation of G. P. - CIT(A) decided the assessee’s appeal by enhancing the addition at ₹ 1,92,538/- by observing that on verification of books of account, it was noticed by him that the turnover of assessee included sale of shares and stock option (derivatives) - Held that:- As per Section 43(5) “Speculative transaction” means a transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity, including stocks and shares, is periodically or ultimately settled otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer of the commodity or scrips.Prima facie it is clear that Section 43(5)(d) is for trading in derivatives not trading of shares. The assessee claimed that the assessee has traded these shares through broker and through electronics mode, which comes U/s 43(5)(d) of the Act and shall not be deemed to be an speculative transaction, has wrongly interpreted Section 43(5) of the Act. The assessee has not produced any evidence regarding delivery of shares and transactions note, detail of scrap traded during the year under consideration. Therefore, we do not find any reason to intervene in the order of the ld CIT(A).- Decided against assessee. Addition to sundry creditors - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- As mentioned above, the assessee was non-cooperative with the department even there is no copy of replies filed to show that full name, address and PAN of trade creditors were filed before Assessing Officer. The ld CIT(A) was also wrong to accept the assessee’s claim and held that show cause notice was given by the Assessing Officer itself for trade creditors on 27/12/2010 is against the fact of the case as submitted by the ld DR with reference to paper book submitted by the assessee. We have also perused the above documents, the argument of the ld DR was found correct and the assessee had not submitted complete details of creditors with full address with PAN before the Assessing Officer. Any expenses claimed in the P&L account, burden lies on the assessee, which has not been discharged by the assessee, therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside this issue to the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer and submit all the required details for his satisfaction to prove the genuineness of the trade creditors as per law. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Addition of unsecured loan - Held that:- The assessee furnished these details on 27/12/2010 hardly three days had remained with the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment proceedings, therefore, there is no lapse on the part of the Assessing Officer to make the addition U/s 68 of the Act, which was confirmed by the ld CIT(A). Even evidence filed before us, does not show that the assessee had filed confirmation as well as PAN number before the Assessing Officer. Even the assessee before the ld CIT(A) has claimed that it has filed the confirmation with PAN number before the Assessing Officer, which was beyond the truth. As discussed above, the assessee’s attitude was non-cooperative but in the interest of justice, this issue be also required to be set aside to the Assessing Officer.- Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Addition of miscellaneous expenses - Held that:- The ld Assessing Officer issued various questionnaire to the appellant, which was not responded. On 27/12/2010, he appeared before the Assessing Officer. Before that he partly filed the information before the Assessing Officer whatever evidence it referred, does not support the assessee’s case that he had filed the required evidences for claim of expenses, therefore, we in the interest of justice, set aside this issue to the Assessing Officer and assessee is directed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer and submit the required detail to decide the set aside proceedings - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Disallowance of salary expenses - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- The assessee has surrendered during the course of survey proceedings at ₹ 21,93,700/- which includes excess cash of ₹ 20,49,000/- and sundry creditors of ₹ 21,44,700/-, which has been credited in the P&L account and thereafter net income was ₹ 21,94,196/- for the year under consideration. Therefore, order of the ld CIT(A) deserved to be confirmed on this issue. - Decided against revenue. Addition to fixed assets - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- The assessee never had furnished any evidence for purchase of assets before the lower authorities. Books of account were also not produced before the Assessing Officer. The ld CIT(A) also decided the issue on the basis of books of account without referring to the purchase bills. Further the assets transferred from proprietorship concern of Shri Lucky Bathla has not been verified from the balance sheet of Shri Lucky Bathla. The ld CIT(A) has accepted the assessee’s argument without allowing the opportunity to the Assessing Officer, therefore, in the interest of justice, this issue is required to be set aside to the Assessing Officer. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.
|