9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regarding sale & purchase. 3. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,23,920/- in the AY 2003-04; Rs.1,27,671/- in the AY 2004-05;`.1,33,093/- in the AY 2005- 6; Rs. 2,80,240/- in the AY 2006-07; Rs. 1,45,928/- in the AY 2007-08 & Rs. 1,64,692/- in the AY 2008-09 made on account of disallowance of 50% of expenditure and depreciation. 4. (a) The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal." CO nos.31/Del/2011 to 36/Del/2011 "1. That in view of the facts & circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has erred in not holding that the notice issued u/s 153C and the assessment order passed u/s 153C/143(3) are illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and barred by time limitation. 2. That the documents found during search proceedings, as referred to in the satisfaction note, do not belong to assessee as the same were part of working papers of the C.A. Sh. B.K.Dhingra in whose office the search was conducted. Hence, the notice issued u/s 153C, based on said do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m Dhingra and M/s Madhusudan Buildcon Pvt.Ltd. on 20th October, 2008. During the course of search at their residential premises at F-6/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, certain documents belonging to the assessee were seized. Consequently, a notice u/s 153C of the Act read with sec. 153A of the Act, was issued to the assessee on 8th July, 2010 for the aforesaid six assessment years. In response, the assessee filed following returns declaring income as detailed hereunder:- Assessment year Date of filing Income [in Rs.] 2003-04 8.9.2010 1480 2004-05 8.9.2010 1700 2005-06 8.9.2010. 1150 2006-07 8.9.2010 1620 2007-08 8.9.2010 2860 2008-09 8.9.2010 3090 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer[AO in short],inter alia, noticed that the assessee company, incorporated on 1.6.1998, belonged to Thapar Group of cases, was involved in floating several concerns with dummy directors and shareholders and formed capital with huge reserves and surplus..These reserves were stated to be invested in stocks of textiles As on 31.3.2002, the assessee declared stock of Rs. 7,94,24,569/-,which formed opening stock for the period relevant to the AY 2003-04.The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounts has not been rejected by the AO, no question of disallowance of purchases u/s 69C arises. The judgement in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Radhika Creation ITA No.692/2009 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case as all the purchase are accounted in the regular books, the source is obviously explained. The provisions of sec 69C are not applicable as there was no unaccounted expenditure. In view of the above the addition of Rs.30,28,254/- made by the AO on account of purchases u/s 69C is deleted." 4.1 Likewise, in respect of the addition made u/s 68 of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition as under:- "30. The above said submissions of the appellant were forwarded to the AO for its comments. The AO vide letter dated 16.08.2011 has submitted his remand report and on this issue he has not stated any thing else specifically except placing reliance on the findings and observations in the assessment order. 31. I have considered the assessment order, written submissions, remand report and rejoinder to the remand report filed by the AR as well as the facts of the case and the position of law. I have observed that as all the sales have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been found which justifies the disallowance of the expenses. Complete books of accounts were produced before the AO. He has not pointed out any defect in the correctness or completeness of the books of accounts. Moreover books of accounts are duly audited under the companies act. There is no negative observation in the auditors report. It is further observed that the assessment of the appellant company for the AY 2002-03 has already been completed wherein no disallowance of the expenses was made. The appellant has placed reliance on the various judgments wherein it has been held that following the rule of consistency on identical facts separate conclusions by the revenue authorities are not in order. In view of the above in my considered opinion there is no substance in the lump sum disallowance of 50% the expenses of Rs.1,23,920/- and accordingly AO is directed to delete the addition on this account. In view of this position the grounds of appeal no.9, 10, 11 & 12 raised by the appellant are allowed." 4.3 For similar reasons, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions u/s 69C & 68 of the Act besides deleting disallowance of expenses in the AYs 2004-05 to 2008-09.. 5. The Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to enable us to take a different view in the matter, we have no basis to interfere. In view thereof, ground nos.1 & 2 in the appeal are dismissed. 7. As regards disallowance of expenses in these six assessment years, the ld. CIT(A) found that in the assessment of the assessee for AY 2002-03, no disallowance of expenses was made while the AO ,in the years under consideration, did not point out any item of expenditure, warranting disallowance. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any basis , when the Revenue did not even identify any specific amount of expenditure ,which was not related to the business of the assessee, we are not inclined to interfere. Therefore, ground no 3 in these appeals is also dismissed. 8. In view of our aforesaid findings, rejecting the appeals of the Revenue, the grounds raised by the assessee in their COs become purely academic and therefore, do not survive for our adjudication. 9. Ground no.4(a) in these appeals of the Revenue, being general in nature, do not require any separate adjudication nor any submissions having been made before us on this ground while no additional ground having been raised before us in terms of residuary ground no. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
