TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s signature is taken on the order sheet of the Assessing Officer to the above effect. Therefore, ground is without any substance and the same is dismissed. Addition as unexplained investment - contention of the assessee is that the finding of the Assessing Officer that it has withdrawn from the current account is wrong and in fact, it was withdrawn from the firm - Held that:- It is seen from the cash flow statement that the assessee had wrongly credited the net profit of ₹ 52,318/- to the cash flow statement. The net profit from the business is credited to assessee’s current account in the books of account of the business and has not been withdrawn from there. Therefore, this amount of ₹ 52,318/-, shown in the cash flow, is r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 25,000/-. Subsequently, revised return was filed on 21.11.2003 declaring total income at ₹ 3,63,150/- and agricultural income at ₹ 25,000/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1). Thereafter, notice u/s 148 was issued on 27.4.2004. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed return of income on 26.5.2004 declaring a total income of ₹ 3,73,146/- and agricultural income of ₹ 25,000/-. The reassessment was completed vide order dated 30.8.2006 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the I T Act. In the reassessment completed, the total income of the assessee was fixed at ₹ 8,43,730/- as against the returned income of ₹ 3,73,150/-. 3 Aggrieved by the reassessment completed, an appeal was filed before the first ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld counsel for the assessee Shri Arun Raj.S submitted that the reassessment is bad in law since the time limit for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act had not expired when the notice u/s 148 was issued. The above contention of the assessee is devoid of merits in view of the latest judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Abad Fisheries (supra) (judgment delivered on the review petition filed by the revenue). No other issues were argued on validity of the reassessment hence, ground nos 1 to 8 raised in the appeal memo regarding validity of assessment, are rejected. 6 Ground nos 9 to 13 deal with issue on merits and the same read as follows: 9. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and fact confirming the additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to point out that the motor car was purchased exclusively for the purpose of business and the loan is also taken by the business. In the circumstances the addition deserves deletion. ii. The disallowance of a sum of ₹ 15,898/- is wrong and made on surmises. The appellant did produce all vouchers and all the expenses were incurred for the purpose of the business and expended in the course of business and the accounts of the appellant are audited and there are no such remarks in the audit report. In that view of the matter the addition deserves deletion. iii. With regard to the addition of ₹ 3,62,956/- made as unexplained investments, it is pertinent to point out that the appellant did file a valuation report and the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmissions and perused the material on record. Ground no.9 is with regard to the disallowance of 1/4th expenses, being repairs and maintenances of car on account of personal use. The assessee itself had added back 1/4th of depreciation on car for personal use. Therefore, 1/4th of other expenses, relating to the car, has been rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Hence, ground no.9 is dismissed. 8.1 Ground no.10 is with regard to the disallowance of ₹ 15,898/- being 1/4th of travelling and sundry expenses, which are not supported by proper vouchers. This disallowance is an agreed disallowance by Chartered Accountant of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S and the same has been rightly treated as unexplained expense by the Assessing Officer which was confirmed by the CIT(A), Hence, ground no.12 is rejected. 8.4 Ground no.13 is with regard to the addition of ₹ 3,62,956/- being unexplained investment. On perusal of the order sheet of the Assessing Officer, I noticed that this addition has been made on an agreed basis and therefore, questioning this addition at this stage without filing necessary affidavit, is devoid of merits. Therefore, the addition of ₹ 3,62,956/- is upheld. Hence, ground no.13 is also rejected. 9 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 2nd day of Feb 2017. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
