TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -9-2013 - Shri R. S. Syal, AM And Shri Vivek Varma, JM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Prakash Pandit For the Respondent : Shri Santosh Kumar ORDER Per : Vivek Varma (JM) The three appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-39, Mumbai, all dated 01.11.2010. 2. The grounds raised in the grounds of appeal as per Form No. 36 are common in all the three years impugned before us, which read as under. (i) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T.(Appeals) erred in confirming the A.O.'s action of invoking provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w. Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962 and thereby erred in directing the A.O. to rework the disallowance of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Profit Loss account and, secondly, the same has been debited to the assessee's own capital account. Thus, the disallowance of ₹ 37,885, on account of indirect expenditure is deleted. As regards disallowance of interest on the dividend income earned in the hands of the minor, no expenditure can be disallowed because apparently no expenditure has been debited to the minor's account. Thus, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of ₹ 1,15,464, being % of the dividend income earned by the minor. Now, coming to the disallowance of ₹ 4,48,753, being attributable to % of the average investments, it is noticed that before the Assessing Officer, the assessee himself subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessary details for adjudication of this issue. Consequently, the ground raised by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. 4. Since, the issue in the impugned appeals are covered by the decision in assessee's, own case, for consistency, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the AO, so that a consistent view comes out. In the result, the appeals in assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In assessment year 2001-02, the AR pointed out the addition has been made on routine basis, as no incriminating document had been found in the course of search and seizure operations. The assessee, has therefore, raised additional leg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. If, on the other hand, there was pendency then the issue shall rest on the incriminating documents. In that case, once again the AO shall give definite finding as to whether there was any incriminating documents pertaining to financial year, relevant to assessment year 2001-02. In such a situation, the issue is covered by the decision in the case of ACIT vs Pratibha Industrities Ltd, reported in 141 ITD 151 (Mum), wherein, it has been held that in case there is no incriminating material, in such a case assessment u/s 143(3) read with 153A shall be made at the original figure of finalized assessment. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) on the legal issue and direct the AO to frame the assessment afresh, in view of the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
