TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .06.2015 of the ld. Pr. CIT(C), Kanpur. 2. Since, the issues involved are common in all these appeals which were heard together so these are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. At the first instance, we will deal with the appeal in ITA No. 5347/Del/2015 in the case of Hydric Farms Inputs Ltd., New Delhi Vs Pr. CIT(C), Kanpur. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: 1. BECAUSE the Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in observing that the regular assessment order dated 15.10.2014 had been passed by the Assessing Officer without examining/making enquiries on various issues [as specified in the notice under section 263(1) dated 23.0.2015] and on that ground in holding the said assessment order to be erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of revenue so as to assume jurisdiction to set aside the same. 2. BECAUSE the assessment order dated 15.10.2014 accorded fully with the provisions of law and it could not have been held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue so as to empower the Pr. CIT to set aside the said assessment order, with the direction to the Assessing Officer to mak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on very cogent grounds and refusal of the Pr. CIT to grant such adjournment beyond 10.04.2015 was wholly unjust and even lacked in bonafide as; a) limitation for passing the order under section 263 in relation to the assessment order dated 15.10.2014, was due to expire on 31.03.2016; b) notice under section 263(1) was issued on 23.03.2015, fixing the date of hearing on 30.03.2015; c) on 30.03.2015 the appellant had duly appeared through its authorized representative and sought for one month's time for making compliance of the said notice; d) the adjournment was granted upto 10.04.2015 only, and after the said date the Pr. CIT took more than two months in passing the order under section 263, on 16.06.2015; and e) even after that, his office took nearly two weeks in serving the order on the assessee/appellant 8. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice. 4. Vide Ground Nos. 5 to 7, the main grievance of the assessee relates to the effective opportunity of being heard not given by the Pr. CIT. 5. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Agriculture related (claimed exernpt) 3,36,75,250/- 2,85,09,239/- 84.66% Non agriculture related 37,05,25, 289/- 64,55,921/- 1.74% Total 40,42,00,539/- 3,49,65,160/- 8.65% This analysis clearly indicates that there is abnormal profit declared in respect of exempt income and very low profit declared in respect of taxable income. As per section 14A(2) of the IT Act, 1961 The Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of total income under this Act in accordance with such method as may be prescribed. If the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the correctness of claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of total income under this Act. A simple perusal of above chart clearly indicates that assessee has shown very high net profit for agricultural activities and leading a conclusion that agricul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me? All these aspects have not been examined by the AO. 6. The ld. Pr. CIT asked the assessee to show cause as to why the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 15.10.2014 should not be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of Section 263(1) of the Act and as to why remedial action should not be taken. He fixed the date of hearing on 30.03.2015. In response, the assessee sought adjournment requesting for one month time. However, the hearing was fixed again on 06.04.2015 on that date also the assessee sought adjournment. The ld. Pr. CIT fixed the date of compliance on 10.04.2015. On the said date also, the authorized representative of the assessee sought adjournment. However, the ld. CIT(A) decided the case ex-parte and held that the order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and set aside the same. 7. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the request for adjournment was made to the ld. CIT(A), since the mother of the authorized representative got burnt and was going through medical treatment. In support of the above contention, he furnished the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
