Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (6) TMI 882 - ITAT DELHI

2015 (6) TMI 882 - ITAT DELHI - TMI - Reopening of assessment - unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - CIT(A) deleted addition quashing reopening assessment admitting additional evidence - Held that:- From the perusal of the CIT(A)'s order we do not find any thing as to the prayer made by the assessee company for admission of additional evidence. The reassessment was made u/s 144 of the Act. It implies that the assessment was made for non cooperation, non production evidence before the Assessing Offic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X



As per the mandate of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, we remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction that the appeal shall be reheard and the Assessing Officer shall be given reasonable opportunity as per provisions of Clause(3) of Rule 46A of the Rules, 1962 and dispose of the matter accordingly. - Decided partly in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 244/Del/2007 - Dated:- 6-5-2015 - G. C. Gupta, VP And Inturi Rama Rao, AM .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in entertaining fresh evidence without affording any opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine those evidences. 3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of ₹ 26,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. 4. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of ₹ 29,94,850/- on account of expenses incurred out .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the case are that the respondent-assessee company had filed the return of income for the AY 1999-2000 on 31.12.1999 declaring a loss of ₹ 1,84,500/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act on 16.06.2000. Subsequently, based on the strength of information received from another Assessing Officer namely Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1), New Delhi that the assessee company invested a sum of ₹ 26,00,000/- in cash in the form of share application .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

plained cash credit u/s 68 introduced in the company as discussed in the body of order 29,94,850 Net Income 60,70,825" Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee company preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 06.10.2007 in Appeal No.61/05-06 allowed the appeal of the assessee company both on the preliminary issue relating to reopening of the assessment and as well as on merits of the addition. Being aggrieved, the revenue had come up present appeal befor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g Officer in utter disregard of provisions of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. 3. No one was present on behalf of the respondent-assessee. It is seen from the record, the notice could not be served on the assessee company despite best of efforts of the Department and hence we proceed to pass the ex-parte order on merits. At the first instance, we shall deal with preliminary issue on the validity of reopening proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) had held the reopening assessment invalid as according to him .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ered opinion that Ld. CIT(A) misdirected himself in placing reliance in decisions mentioned supra. In the present case, the Assessing Officer received information from another Assessing Officer that the assessee company invested in cash in the form of share application money of ₹ 26,00,000/. This information in our considered view gave the Assessing Officer reason to believe that income chargeable tax had escaped assessment. The investment in the cash form for share application money certa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

evant income tax authorities to determine the said question by taking appropriate proceedings both against A and B" [Chhotolal Haridas Vs. M.D. Karnik, (1961) 43 ITR 387, 392 (SC); Sidh Gopal Gajanad Vs. ITO, (1969) 73 ITR 226, 233 (All); R. Dalmia Vs. Union of India, (1972) 84 ITR 616 (Del)]. It is also equally settled law that at the time of issuance of reassessment notice, is not mandatory that the Assessing Officer should come to a conclusive finding that income has escaped assessment a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version