Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 796 - ITAT MUMBAIAssessment u/s 153A - Addition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Held that:- By the time the search and seizure operation took place under section 132 in case of the assessee on 20th January 2012, assessment for the impugned assessment year stood completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Thus, as on the date of search there was no abated assessment proceeding for the impugned assessment year. Therefore, in the proceedings initiated under section 153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer could have made additions only in respect of income which was found as a result of search or has a nexus with the incriminating materials found as a result of search. On the contrary, in the computation filed along with the original return of income, the assessee made a disallowance of ₹ 10 lakh under section 14A of the Act. Thus, the issue of disallowance of expenditure under section 14A stood concluded on completion of assessment under section 143(3) originally. That being the case, the Assessing Officer has no power to re–visit such issue in the proceeding initiated under section 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material concerning such issue. - Decided in favour of assessee Addition made on account of forfeiture of share warrant - Held that:- Addition was not on the basis of any incriminating material found as a result of search. Rather, all information relating to forfeiture of share warrant and credit to capital reserve account was reflected in audited account as well as notes to the accounts filed along with return of income which was available before the Assessing Officer during the original assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, on the date of search, there being no abated assessment the Assessing Officer could not have made addition in a proceedings under section 153A in respect of an issue which has no nexus with any incriminating material found during the search. For this reason also addition made cannot be sustained and the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be upheld. Addition made on account of alleged bogus purchase - dispute is only with regard to source of purchase made by the assessee - Held that:- The facts on record indicate that, though the assessee has made the purchases, however, he has failed to prove the exact source from which such purchases were made. In the circumstances, addition of the entire purchases would not be proper considering the fact that the assessee might have made such purchases by paying cash thereby avoiding payment of VAT. Therefore, for taking care of leakage of revenue on that account, it will be reasonable to estimate the profit on bogus purchase at 12.5%. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance @ 12.5% of the bogus purchase. This ground is partly allowed. Addition made on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC - Held that:- There is no dispute that the assessee has paid employee’s contribution to PF/ESIC dues within the due date of return of income as provided under section 139(1) of the Act. That being the case, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. (2014 (7) TMI 477 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) squarely applies to the fact of the present case. Accordingly, we uphold the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by dismissing the ground raised. Deduction allowed. Claim of deduction under section 80IC - delivery challan impounded in the course of survey evidencing transfer of readymade garment from Daman Unit - Held that:- As from the observations made by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) it is noticed that through evidence brought on record, the assessee was able to demonstrate that the deduction claimed under section 80IC was in respect of readymade garments manufactured at Baddi Unit and not on stock transfer from Daman Unit. The aforesaid factual finding of the first appellate authority has not been controverted by the Learned Departmental Representative by bringing before us any cogent evidence. Therefore, we are unable to disturb the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. Moreover, in the course of hearing it has been brought to our notice by the learned Authorised Representative that assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80IC has been allowed in scrutiny assessment made under section 143(3) for the assessment year 2013–14. The aforesaid fact also gives credence to the genuineness of assessee’s claim. In view of the aforesaid, we uphold the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Resultantly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
|