TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the CIT(A) whose order was made on 07.11.2012. We also notice that the appeal before the CIT(A) itself was instituted on 21.01.2010. In these circumstances, the CIT(A) was certainly within its right, before rendering its findings, to have additionally called for the returns for the subsequent years (when these entries were in fact reflected by the assessee in its returns) as well as the returns of the associate concerns. This, in our opinion, would have reflected the complete picture and either supported or falsified assessee’s contentions with respect to the inadvertence in omitting to make a mention of this investment at the relevant time in AY 2007-08. - Matter is remitted to the CIT(A) for specific finding on this question. It go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee s returns and books for later years by inadvertence, was brushed aside. The CIT(A) granted limited relief, observing that the additions under two heads under Sections 68 and 69 of the Act are essentially the same, which amounted to double treatment, resulting in multiple taxation. Consequently, addition under Section 68 was deleted. However, the CIT(A) affirmed the AO s decision to bring to tax the sum of ₹ 1,17,73,900/- under Section 69. It is argued by the revenue that the ITAT fell into error in disturbing the concurrent finding of fact. Learned counsel highlighted that the assessee was unable to explain the source of expenditure incurred given that it had reflected assets to the tune of ₹ 1,11,15,000/-. It w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned counsel submitted that the explanation with regard to inadvertence - or omission, in not reflecting these transactions in assessee s books was convincing, given that for AY 2009-10, all these transactions were reflected in its returns. Learned counsel relied upon this ground of appeal which appears to have been urged before the CIT(A) and even recorded in his order in para 5.1. This Court has considered the rival submissions. The CIT(A) appears to have taken into account the remand report. The assessee, in turn, appears to have relied upon letters written by the associate companies, each one of which had mentioned that the sums were paid directly to the asseseee s vendor during the concerned period in the assessment year in ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
