9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') passed in ITA No.6185/Del./2014. 2. Cheil India Private Limited ('assessee') had suffered a best judgment assessment vide order of the Assessing Officer dated 28th March, 2014 under Section 144 of the Act. Additions of Rs. 3,01,15,968/- and Rs. 1,31,46,91,575/- were made on account of low net profit ratio and difference in the receipts as declared and the receipts as shown in Form No.26AS, respectively. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('CIT (Appeals)' for short) vide his order dated 20th October, 2014 upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer in passing the best judgment assessment order. Notwithstanding the said findings, the CIT (Appeals) proceeded to examine the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usively prove under-statement of income, which was an aspect to be determined on the touchstone of the factual and legal position. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer, who was required to procure requisite details from vendors and thereafter make reconciliation of the transactions recorded in the books of accounts. Even for the earlier assessment year 2009-10, this issue had been remanded by the Tribunal to the Assessing Officer for the same reason. 5. On the question of ad hoc deduction, the Tribunal has recorded that no notice has been issued to the vendors to whom payments had been made by raising bills. Therefore, the issue was required to be reexamined threadbare and exhaustively by the Assessing Officer after procuring r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for hearing on 27th September, 2012 could not have been issued on 28th September, 2012. On 15th July, 2013, another notice was issued for hearing on 30th July 2013, which hearing was attended. On 13th September, 2013, another notice was issued for hearing on 20th September, 2013. According to the Assessing Officer there was noncompliance, but the appellant/assessee states that they had sought an adjournment for the reason that proceedings for AY 2010-11 were pending. Appellant/assessee state that the next hearings fixed on 27th September, 2013 and 15th October, 2013 were attended. Assessing officer however claims that there was non-compliance. Thereafter, on 27th November, 2013 notice was issued fixing the date of hearing for 11th Decembe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
