GST Help   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
GST - Acts SGST - Acts GST - FAQ GST Rates, Exemption CGST Notif. IGST Notif. Exempt Income Salary income
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2017 (6) TMI 346 - ITAT PUNE

2017 (6) TMI 346 - ITAT PUNE - TMI - Reopening of assessment under section 148 - Held that:- The proceedings under section 148 of the Act were initiated against the assessee. However, where the assessee had failed to furnish any return of income in response to the said notice issued under section 148 of the Act and in response to 142(1) /143(2) of the Act then, the assessee at this juncture cannot raise issue against re-opening of assessment. Hence, the ground of appeal No. 1 raised by the asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n of ₹ 5,00,000/- is upheld in the hands of the assessee. - Disallowance of transport charges - Held that:- There is no merit in the plea of the assessee in this regard wherein the Ld. AR of the assessee had already accepted 5% of disallowance out of total lorry hire charges paid. Upholding the order of CIT(A), ground No. 3 raised by the assessee in appeal is dismissed. - Disallowance out of total expenses on vehicles and telephone expenses - Held that:- Assessing Officer had disal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

accordingly, no other addition on the same transaction is to be made in the hands of the firm and the same is deleted. In respect of other partner, Shri Arun Chachad, addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- has been made and appeal is still pending before the CIT(A). The Ld. AR for the assessee has proposed that the addition made in the hands of the partners on account of their cash contribution be upheld. In case no addition is confirmed in the hands of Shri Arun Chachad, the balance addition of ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

676/PUN/2015 filed by the assessee, Jagatsingh Pratapsingh Jadhav are against the orders of the CIT(A)-1, Nashik dated 20.03.2015 & 18.03.2015 relating to assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 against the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short the Act ). One another appeal being ITA No. 371/PUN/2016 filed by the assessee, J.P Builders & Developers is against the order of CIT(A)-1, Nashik dated 01.12.2015 relating to assessment year 2004-05 agai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng illegal and invalid. 2) On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik is not justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- on account of unexplained investments u/s 69 of the Act. 3) On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik is not justified in confirming the disallowance to the extent of ₹ 3,00,717/- out of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ny of the above grounds of appeals. 4. The first issue raised by the assessee in the present appeal is against reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Act. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had filed return of income declaring total income of ₹ 4,65,043/-. The said return of income was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The Assessing Officer received information from ACIT, Central Circle, Nashik that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assessment. The assessee did not comply with the notice issued u/s 148 or 142(1) of the Act initially and later furnished information. 6. The proceedings under section 148 of the Act were initiated against the assessee. However, where the assessee had failed to furnish any return of income in response to the said notice issued under section 148 of the Act and in response to 142(1) /143(2) of the Act then, the assessee at this juncture cannot raise issue against re-opening of assessment. Hence, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted 17/07/2003 in respect of plot No. 77 at Survey No. 712/2A and 712/2/D/77 admeasuring 502.61 Sq.Mtr. between Zozden F. Lobo and Shri Arun Chachad & Shri J.P Jad hav, Shri Chandulal S. Khemani was confirming party for such transaction. Shri J.P Jadav and Shri Arun Chachad paid the purchase price at ₹ 30,43,000/-. From the copies of bank account of M/s J.P Builders & Developers with Janlaxmi Co-op. Bank account No. 200550, Samarath Nagar Branch on 06/7/2003 there was credit of  .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t was filed. The assessee explained that the cash deposit by him in the accounts had already been explained. However, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has failed to furnish the sources of the said cash and hence, addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- was made in the hands of the assessee. The said addition was confirmed by the CIT(A). Similarly, in the case of other partner, Shri Arun Chachad, addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- was made and the appeal against the same is pending before CIT(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

hould not be made and filed explanation regarding source of ₹ 5,00,000/-. It was pointed out by the Ld. AR for the assessee that property was purchased in the name of the partner wherein firm made payment through cheque and total payment was to the tune of ₹ 30,43,000/-. The assessee pointed out that firm had debited ₹ 16,00,000/- each to the partners capital account. He further stated that admittedly in the capital account of the partnership firm, cash of ₹ 5,00,000/- wa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d in view of the submission of the Ld. AR for the assessee, the addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment for purchase of plot u/s 69 of the Act is upheld in the hands of the assessee, as the said plot is purchased in the name of two persons. The Ld. AR for the assessee has fairly conceded that balance sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- is to be added in the hands of other partner, Shri Arun Chachad. In the said case, appeal is pending before the CIT(A). Accordingly, addition of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the assessee as to why reasonable disallowance should not be made on this account. During course of hearing, CA & AR of the assessee stated that only 5% disallowance would be accepted. However, the Assessing Officer made ad -hoc addition by disallowing 7.5% of the total lorry hire expenses and made addition of ₹ 4,51,076/-. The CIT(A) restricted the same to 5% of the total expenses against which the assessee is in appeal. There is no merit in the plea of the assessee in this regard wh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he disallowance to 10% of the total expenses i.e ₹ 22,924/-. There is no merit in the ground of appeal No. 4 raised by assessee and hence, the same is dismissed. 13. The assessee in ITA No. 676/PUN/2015 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1) On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik is not justified in confirming the disallowance to the extent of ₹ 2,26,430 out of total transport payments as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The issue raised by assessee in ground No. 1 is similar to the issue raised in ground No. 3 in ITA No. 696/PUN/2015. The issue raised in ground No.2 is similar to the issue raised in ground No. 4 in ITA No. 696/PUN/2015. Following same line of reasoning, both the grounds of appeal are dismissed. 15. The assessee M/s J.P Builders & Developers in ITA No. 371/PUN/2016 has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1) On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s ignoring the explanations of the appellant regarding genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the parties to the transaction. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 is also not justified in confirming the said addition of ₹ 10,00,000/- particularly when the same addition is also made in the hands of the partners and more particularly where the addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- in the case of one of the partner is confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 3) On .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

isallowance of ₹ 11,235/- on account of office expenses and vehicle expenses ignoring the reasonability compared to the nature and volume of the business. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 is further not justified in not adjudicating the issue on merit. 5) On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 is not justified in directing the AO to take further action against the appellant for A.Y 2003-04 to verify th .....

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