TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lance against their names is identical as noticed by the Assessing Officer in para 11 of the assessment order. Thus these are the loans brought forward from earlier years. Addition u/s 68 can be made of the amount(s) which are noticed by the AO as credit balance in the account in the year in which they were introduced. These amounts have not been introduced for the first time in this year. Therefore, the nature and source cannot be enquired in this year. For this reason we allow this ground and delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 1625, 1626, 1627/Ahd/2012, ITA No.1566/Ahd/2012, CO No.4, 5/Ahd/2013 - - - Dated:- 27-1-2016 - Rajpal Yadav, JM And Manish Borad, AM For the Petitioner : Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, AR For the Respondent : Shri Alok Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER Per Bench CIT (A) has decided three appeals of the assessee vide separate orders of even date i.e. 28th May, 2012 passed in Asst. Years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. In Assessment Year 2006-07 Revenue and assessee are in cross appeals whereas in Asst. Year 2007-08 and 2008-09 Revenue has filed the appeals and on receipt of notice in Revenue's appeals, assessee has filed Cross ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y stage. Hon. Supreme Court in the case of NTPC vs. CIT reported at 229 ITR 383 has observed that if an issue is going to affect the taxability of an assessee and no fresh investigation of facts is required then assessee will be at liberty to raise such an issue before the Tribunal for the first time. Considering the judgment of Hon. Supreme Court in the above case, we permit the assessee to raise additional ground of appeal for AY 2007-08. 5. Ld. counsel for the assessee on the strength of Hon. Gujarat High Court's decision in the case of CIT vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani 355 ITR 172 contended that Hon'ble High Court had an occasion to construe the meaning of expression and also employed in section 147 and propounded that if no addition is being made on an issue for which assessment was reopened then the Assessing Officer will be precluded to take any other issue for making addition in reassessment proceedings. In other words for assessing or reassessing any other income it came to the notice of Assessing Officer during the reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer has to first make an addition on an issue for which assessment was reopened. In this background ld. couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1,08,740/- (ii) Unexplained sundry creditors as per para 6 Rs.5,55,021/- (iii) Unverifiable expenses as per para 7 Rs.4,09,584/ Rs.10,73,345/- Total income Rs.11,08,339/ Rounded off u/s 288A Rs.11,08,340/- Assessed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Charge interest u/s 234A/B C of the Act as applicable. Give credit to the prepaid taxes, if any. Issue demand notice and challan accordingly. Issue penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. On perusal of the above computations, it shows that Assessing Officer has not made any addition with regard to the job work receipts alleged to have not been disclosed by the assessee. Therefore, in view of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's judgment coupled with the judgment of Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT 336 ITR 136 (Del) and the judgment of Hon. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken following grounds :- (1) ITO has erred in law and on facts to initiate proceedings u/s 147 of IT Act, 1961, on the basis of finding given by lower Service Tax Authority and when appeal filed by the appellant before Customs, Excise Service Tax. Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad is pending to be decided to initiate proceedings u/s 147 are not legal. (2) Proceedings initiated against appellant u/s 147 of IT Act, 1961 are without valid reason. (3) ITO has erred in law and on facts to come to a finding that amount of ₹ 1,31,266/- (Rs.17,66,427/- Deposits made with DCB Bank Rs.16,35,161/- receipts as per profit loss a/c) is unaccounted sales and to estimate income ₹ 11,289/- on the basis of net profit rate of 8.60% as per books and to add the same to the income returned. (4) ITO has erred in law and on facts to add an amount of ₹ 1,85,000/- which is not credited in books of accounts in the year under appeal but it is carried forward from the earlier year. Provisions of sec.68 of IT Act wrongly applied. Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in confirming this addition. (5) Ld. ITO has erred in law and on facts to disallow an amount of ₹ 3,73,654/- treating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
