TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing stock submitted during assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2010-11 and the purchases of GP-100 were sold in Financial Year 2008-09 itself. We find that, value wise closing stock as on 31/03/2009 was similar to opening stock of 01/04/2009 and it was merely a error, which either inadvertently occurred due to non-updation of the software. Otherwise, valuewise, there is no difference, therefore, this ground of the assessee is allowed. Commission paid to husband of the assessee - Held that:- The commission was paid out of business expediency and further was made through banking channel. The statement of husband was recorded who confirmed of getting the commission. The husband of the assessee duly declared the commission in his return and paid taxes thereon, thus, there is no loss to the Revenue. Even the Ld. Assessing Officer has not denied the factum of payment of commission. It was merely a business transaction, thus, this ground of the assessee is allowed. Identical is the situation in the case of payment of commission amounting to ₹ 5,25,000/- to Mr. Nagesh Hatim, employee of the assessee. The amount was paid through banking channel and even during recording of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Anupama Singla, defended the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee deals in cocoa and cocoa products. The assessee furnished the details of opening stock totaling ₹ 42,05,128/-, which was compared by the Assessing Officer with the assessment record of Assessment Year 2009-10 and some difference in quantities was found. The ld. Assessing Officer, thus, made addition of ₹ 7,98,205/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), there also, the addition was affirmed. The assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 2.2. If the observation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, assertions made by the ld. respective counsel, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, there is no dispute to the fact that there was some error in the quantity of earlier Assessment Year, which as per the assessee, occurred due to non-u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the ld. counsel that the commission was paid out of commercial expediency and not to evade the tax. It was contended that Shri Harish Kothari, is in the business of manufacturing of bulk chocolates and the commission was paid for procuring business to the assessee. The commission was claimed to be made through account payee cheque, subjected to TDS and the same was disclosed in the return of income. On the other hand, the ld. DR, defended the addition. 3.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The addition was made of ₹ 5,85,500/- as commission was paid to Mr. Harish Kothari, who is husband of the assessee. The commission was paid out of business expediency and further was made through banking channel. The statement of husband was recorded who confirmed of getting the commission. The husband of the assessee duly declared the commission in his return and paid taxes thereon, thus, there is no loss to the Revenue. Even the Ld. Assessing Officer has not denied the factum of payment of commission. It was merely a business transaction, thus, this ground of the assessee is allowed. Identical is the situation in the case of payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tronics (Supra), wherein, it was held as under:- It was found that the impugned order merely applied the decision of the Apex Court in GNK Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Further it also followed the decision of this Court in Videsh Sanchanr Nigam Ltd. (supra) in holding that an order passed in reassessment proceedings was bad in law in the absence of reasons recorded for issuing a reopening notice under Section 148 of the Act being furnished to the assessee when sought for. It is axiomatic that power to reopen a completed assessment under the Act is an exceptional power and whenever revenue seeks to exercise such power, they must strictly comply with the prerequisite conditions viz. Reopening of reasons to indicate that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment which would warrant the reopening of an assessment. These recorded reasons as laid down by the Apex Court must be furnished to the assessee when sought for so as to enable the assessee to object to the same before the Assessing Officer. Thus in the absence of reasons being furnished, when sought for would make an order passed on reassessment bad in law. The recordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
