9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting the additions made by the A.O. by holding that the additions made by the A.O. de hors the reference or foundation in incriminating seized material are not sustainable. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,65,647/- being interest payment though the assessee had made interest free advances out of interest bearing funds. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in deleting the addition on account of washing/handling loss of Rs. 1,70,500/-. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O." 2.2 In IT(ss)A No.144/Ahd/2016 for Asst. Year 2008-09: 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in deleting the additions made by the A.O. by holding that the additions made by the A.O. de hors the reference or foundation in incriminating seized material are not sustainable. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has err ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained in his letter NO.CIT(C)-II/Friends Gr. /Special Audit/KSAIPL/2013-14/3684/ dated 26/03/2014, the Assessing Officer vide his letter dated 26/03/2014 which was served upon the assessee on 27/03/2014, directed it to get its accounts audited by the special Auditor, Pramodkumar Dad and Associates, Ahmedabad and furnish the Special Audit report in form No.6B as mentioned in Rule 14A of the I.T. Rules, 1962, within 100 days of receipt of this communication from the Assessing Officer. However, as per the letter of the Accountant addressed to the A.O., the assessee did not provide any account books, vouchers, details etc. to him in the first about 90 days. Therefore, looking to the non co-operative attitude of the assessee, on two requests of the Accountant, the A.O., suo motu, with the previous approval of the CIT(Central)-II, Ahmedabad, extended the period of audit to be completed in 180 days which is the maximum permissible time limit as per provisions of sec. 142(2C) of the I.T. Act. The Accountant furnished his report on 22.09.2014, a copy of which was also received from the assessee on 26.09.2014. In view of the observations of the Accountant, a show-cause notice was issued to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tisfactory reply of your notice. In this case, it is to be noted that the case of the assessee was centralized with you vide order u/s.127 of the Act on 09.04.2012. Notice u/s.153A of the Act was issued in this case on 02.01.2013 and the assessee was required to file its return of income within 30 days. The assessee did not file return till 29th June, 2013. It is clear that there is considerable delay on the part of the assessee to avoid the proceedings. Even after filing return of income, the assessee has not fully complied with your notice dated 03.12.2013. Therefore, at once hand the assessee is itself using dilatory tactics on the other hand it is alleging the Department for buying time. In the present case, you have issued an elaborate show cause notice to the assessee specifying the complexities. Volume, doubt about the correctness of accounts and non compliances of various queries during the assessment proceedings by the assessee. However, assessee's reply is cryptic and not to the point. It is to be further observed that when the assessee itself is not supplying information, then this fact itself refers to the complexity of the accounts. The Court decision quoted by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard to ground no.1, ld. CIT held that under exactly similar facts in the case of the Group concern, namely, M/s. Arvind V. Joshi & Co., A.Y.s 2006-07 to 2008-09 in consolidated appellate order No.CIT(A) 12/498 to 500/CCIT-CC- 2(3)/14-15 dated 28/12/2015. He hold in these appeals that the directions u/s.142(2A) based on and evidenced by due approval of the CIT, as statutorily prescribed, is a conclusive evidence of due process as prescribed, and further, that the same, being purely administrative in nature, were not amenable to challenge in appellate proceedings. Thereafter, he also observed in that appellate order, that there is no material on the one hand and there is no prejudice caused to the appellant on the other hand requiring interference with the observation of imputation of non-cooperative attitude made by the AO. Therefore, after considering the totality of the facts, circumstances and material available on record, he dismissed the ground no.1. 9. So far making of disallowance de hors incriminating material found during the search in making assessment that had attained finality prior to search is concerned. AO relied on various authorities to support the arguments th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 180 days. In this case, the AO passing the order under appeal has not see or considered a detailed reply of the appellant by two letters dt.01/07/2014 [one in reply to AO's letter dt 25/06/2014 and second requesting amendment of orders u/s.142(2A)] as also letter dt. 29/07/2014 and 25/09/2014, explaining how the Accountant appointed u/s.142(2A) of the Act actually performed duties assigned to him, particularly the fact that the Accountant failed to even commence the Special Audit for the first 60 days after the appointment on 26/03/2014 and did not even spend a single day for audit work. As a matter of fact the Accountant failed to supply the Audit Reports to the appellant as mandated by the provisions of S.142(2A) of the Act before the due date and actually supplied the same after the due date, even after availing the maximum period of 180 days and in spite of the appellant's AR having alerting him of approaching limitation. These letter's reference has also been given in the order of the ld. CIT(A). In our considered opinion AO did not have any "good and sufficient" reasons for extending the period of audit "suo motu" to the maximum permissible extent, and was not correct in cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
