TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore it was not a case that any new and incriminating material was unearthed as a consequence of the second search carried out against the assessee u/s 132 in February 2013. We therefore find merit in the contention of the Ld. AR that no incriminating material was found against the assessee which was unearthed qua this assessment year for making the impugned disallowance - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition u/s 68 - whether there was any incriminating materials unearthed during the search qua the assessment year ? - HELD THAT:- no evidence was brought on record to prove that the cash deposited in bank accounts of entities forming part of this trail either belonged to the assessee company or originated from the assessee. Moreover, no material whatsoever was brought on record to demonstrate that the alleged cash deposit made in the bank accounts of third parties actually belonged to the assessee company or was provided by the assessee company. No opportunity to cross-examine any of these entities was provided to the assessee. The bank statements based on which the cash trail was prepared were part of the disclosed documents/accounts and therefore cannot be held as incri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e subscription monies received from M/s. Mundat Securities Services Pvt. Ltd for differential treatment. For the reasons discussed in detail in the foregoing therefore we also do not find any merit in the Ld. DR s pleading to the effect that the matter needs to be restored to the file of the AO for decision afresh. This is particularly in view of the fact that in the orders u/s 153C/143(3), the AO of M/s. Mundat Securities Services Pvt. Ltd had accepted the genuineness of the transaction and therefore it was not open for the same AO to question the genuineness of the receipt of monies in the hands of the appellant. We therefore direct the AO to delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition of commission paid on obtaining accommodation entries in the form of share capital. - HELD THAT:- The impugned addition was made by the AO purely on suspicion and there was no material available on record to justify the same. We note that the AO was unable to correlate them with any incriminating document or evidence found in the course of search. Instead the addition was made purely on conjecture. We note that there is nothing on record to suggest that such expenditure was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) on 18.02.2013, in the proceedings u/s. 153A of the Act which were initiated against the assessee, no addition/disallowance could have been made unless there was any live and direct nexus with any incriminating material unearthed during the search. Since the issue raised in Ground No. 1 goes to the root of the matter, we would like to adjudicate this issue first. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its original return of income on 30.10.2007 declaring total income of ₹ 3,81,774/-. Search operations was conducted u/s. 132 of the Act in the assessee s premises on 03.05.2007. Consequent to the search the order u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act was passed for AY 2007-08 on 30.12.2009 assessing total income at ₹ 3,81,774/-. 6. Thereafter, second search u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted on 18.02.2013 and the Panchnama was drawn in the name of the assessee company. Subsequent thereto notice u/s 153A was issued asking the assessee to file return of income and in response the assessee filed return declaring total income of ₹ 3,81,774/- as earlier assessed. In the order p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed assessment unless incriminating materialis unearthed during search qua the assessment year under consideration. Our aforesaid finding is fortified by the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the ITA No. 707, 709 713 of 2014 CIT Central-III vs. Kabul Chawla, wherein their lordships have held as under: Summary of legal position 37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A(1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed by the AOs as a fresh exercise. iii. The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We find no infirmity in the aforesaid Act of the Ld. Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed . 9. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in PCIT-2, Kolkata Vs. Salasar Stock Broking Limited (ITAT No. 264 of 2016) dated 24.08.2016 held as under: In this case, the Honorable Jurisdictional High Court observed that the Ld. ITAT, Kolkata was of the opinion that the assessing officer had no jurisdiction u/s 153A of the I.T. Act to reopen the concluded cases when the search seizure did not disclose any incriminating material. In taking the aforesaid view, the Ld. ITAT relied upon the judgments of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT(A) Vs. Kabul Chawla in ITA No. 707/2014 dated 28.08.2014 . The Court also observed that more or less an identical view has been taken by this Bench in ITA No. 661/2008 in the case of CIT Vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Limited. Considering the above facts, the Honorable High Court did not admit the appeal filed by the Department. It held as follows:- Subject matter of challenge is a judgement and order dated 18th December, 2015 by which the learned Tribunal dismissed an appeal preferred by the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issed. 11. It is noted that the Department had filed a Special Leave Petition in S.L.P (C) No-34554 of 2015 before the Hon ble Apex Court against the above judgment of the Delhi High Court which has since been dismissed. The relevant extracts reported in 380 ITR (st) 64-Ed is as follows: The Hon ble Apex court dismissed the special leave petition filed by the department. The relevant Para as mentioned in the ITR is reproduced as under. Their Lordships MadanB.Lokur and S.A.Bobde JJ dismissed the Department s special leave petition against the judgment dated July 06,2015 of the Delhi High Court in I.T.A No 369 of 2015, whereby the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose since there was a factual finding that no incriminating evidence related to share capital issued was found during the course of search and that the assessing officer was not justified in invoking section 68 of the Act for the purpose of making additions on account of share capital 12. In the light of the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts, wherein, the Hon ble High Court held that in the absence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Even otherwise we find that in the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A); the AO was directed to re-verify the relevant facts from the TAN details and thereafter pass a speaking order. It was brought to our attention that in the order passed u/s 251, after examining the relevant facts, the AO did not retain the disallowance. Therefore even on merits we find the disallowance of ₹ 8,97,950/- to be factually untenable. Accordingly Ground No. 2 of the assessee s appeal is allowed. 13. We find that the Ground No. 1 involved in AY 2007-08 is also involved in the subsequent AYs 2008-09 to 2011-12. A bird s eye view about this factual position for these years (AY 2008-09 to 20.11.2012) are as follows: Asstt. Year Date of filing original return Date of original assessment Asst. Completed u/s. Whether assessment pending on date of search/ abated ( 1) ( 2) ( 3) ( 4) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT in ITA Nos. 5395 5396/DEL/2017; Assessment Years: 2006-07 2007-08, dt. 15/02/2018, which has elucidated the law on this issue in the following manner:- 12. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the relevant material placed on record and the finding given in the impugned order with respect to legal issue raised vide ground no.5 by the assessee that the additions made in this year are beyond the scope of assessment u/s.153A, as no incriminating material was found during the course of search for the impugned Assessment Year; and the assessment had attained finality and was not abated in terms of 2nd Proviso to Section 153A. As stated above, the original return of income was filed in July, 2006 and said return was duly accepted and processed u/s. 143(1) vide intimation dated 25.05.2007. Since no notice u/s. 143(2) was issued thereafter or any other proceedings have been commenced to disturb said return of income, accordingly, it had attained finality much prior to the date of search which was on 20.01.2012. Hence in terms of 2nd Proviso to Section 153A the assessment for the Assessment Year 2006-07 was not pending and accordingly, has to be reck ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material. v. In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in Section 153 A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the AO. vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kurele Paper Mills P. Ltd. {supra) which was referred to in Kabul Chawla (supra) has been affirmed by the Supreme Court by the dismissal of the Revenue's SLP on 7th December, 2015. 18. Post the judgment of MeetaGutgutia (supra), also the same principle have been reiterated in the case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that during the course of search, statement recorded u/s. 132(4) by themselves does not constitute incriminating material and assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer u/s.153A solely based on statement is unsustainable when there is no incriminating material found during the course of search. Again in the case of PCIT vs. DharampalPremchand Ltd., in ITA No.512 to 514/206, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that ratio laid down in the case of Kabul Chawla, MeetaGutgutia, still holds ground and the Revenue s contention that the matter should be referred to a larger bench was turned down. Apart from these judgments, there are catena of other judgments of other High Courts laying down similar ratio and proposition. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we hold that based on general statements of third party and without providing the adverse statements recorded against the assessee if any to the assessee and not providing an opportunity to assessee to rebut/cross examine the person/entry operators cannot be the basis for drawing adverse inference against the assessee. And so, on this issue we find no merit in the contention of Ld. CIT, DR. However, we will deal this elaborately and specifically when considering the merits of addition based on any statement recorded [infra] for each assessment year under consideration before us. Since we have found out that the statements recorded of the entry providers cannot be the basis of additions (which we will again deal later (infra) while examining the merits of the addition), we find that no incriminating materials/statements were available before the AO to make any additions for the abated assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12. We therefore allow Ground No. 1 of assessee s appeal in AYs 2008-09 to 2011-12. However we shall deal with the merits of the additions in the subsequent paragraphs. 15. We now deal with the cross appeals for AY 2008-09 being ITA (SS) Nos. 25/Kol/2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny cogent evidence any link or nexus between receipt of share application monies with any incriminating material or evidence gathered during the course of search. The Ld. AR also submitted that since the assessee was never provided with the statements of the alleged entry operators nor granted opportunity of cross-examination but mere allegations were made in the showcause issued, the appellant attempted to ascertain the correct state of affairs from the Investigation Wing of the Income-tax Department. The assessee was then informed that the alleged entry operators, whose statements formed basis for the allegation, had already furnished their retractions before the Investigating Officer and copies of such retractions were furnished before the AO. In the light of these material events it was contended by the Ld. AR that it was obligatory on the AO s part before drawing any adverse inference against the assessee to personally examine the alleged entry operators to determine the true correct state of affairs. Thus, it was brought to our notice that the additions made were based only on the statements obtained by the Investigation Wing in the proceedings conducted against the alleged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the Assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the Assessee disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted to cross-examine, the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the Assessee. It would be pertinent to note that in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority he has specifically mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the Assessee. However, no such opportunity was granted and the aforesaid plea is not even dealt with by the Adjudicating Authority. As far as the Tribunal is concerned, we find that rejection of this plea is totally untenable. The Tribunal has simply stated that cross-examination of the said dealers could not have brought out any material which would not be in possession of the Appellant themselves to explain as to why their exfactory prices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I) Names of the companies appearing m statements of the entry providers given to investigation wing figure as applicants to shares in the assessee company. II) Perusal of the operating bank a/c shows that the a/c of most of the investing companies are in the same bank as that of the assessee company. III) There is no justification on record whatsoever as to whether the company's credentials commanded a huge share premium, particularly when the same is being paid by strangers. IV) Summons U/S 131 to such persons I company have not been adequately responded and the assessee has failed to produce them in response to the show- cause notice. V) The findings that the investing companies which subscribed to the shares were borne on the file of the ROC and that the monies have come through a/c payee cheques is at best, neutral. Mere payment by cheques is not sacrosanct as would not, make a non-genuine transaction as genuine. VI) Bonafide and genuineness of the transactions is the main issue and in this regard, the assessee company has failed miserably. VII) Scruti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee. It is for the person making the statement or the person using the statement for drawing inference against the assessee to prove the contents of the statement to be correct and truthfulness of the same, and not the other way round. The use of the statement recorded from third party was permissible only if the assessee was furnished the statement of such person and the opportunity of cross examination was also afforded, so that the truthfulness of the statement can be tested on the anvil of cross18 examination. It has to be kept in mind that the AO is empowered to collect materials behind the back of the assessee, however if he intends to use it adversely against the assessee, then it is incumbent upon him to furnish a copy of the materials/statements to the assessee and the assessee should be provided an opportunity to rebut/cross examine the provider/maker of the adverse material. The assessee cannot be kept in the dark and the adverse statements or materials cannot be kept away from his eyes, and if the AO was intending to use it against the assessee to draw adverse inference/finding, then the assessee should be provided the adverse material/statements in order to rebut/cros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the same issue and relate to the addition of ₹ 3.39 crores (rounded off) made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing expenditure of the said sum incurred by the respondent-assessee in form of payments to one Shri S.K. Gupta. The Assessing Officer on the basis of statement of said Shri Gupta recorded during search operations held that the said person had not rendered any service to the assessee-company so as to receive such payments. CIT (Appeals) however deleted the addition inter-alia on the grounds that Shri S.K.Gupta had retracted the statement recorded during search, that the assessee-company had pointed out range of services provided by Shri Gupta and that the Assessing Officer had no other material to disallow the expenditure. The Tribunal in further appeal by the revenue confirmed the view of the CIT (Appeals) independently coming to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition. It was noted that Shri Gupta retracted his statements within a short time by filing an affidavit. Subsequently, his further statement was recorded in which he also reiterated the stand taken in affidavit. The Tribunal also referred to the decision in cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unting to ₹ 45,000/- is also held to be unsustainable. Accordingly both the additions are directed to be deleted. 23. The second material addition which is disputed in the appeals filed both by assessee and Revenue relates to disallowance of ₹ 21,81,06,060/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. At the onset it was brought to our attention that in the impugned order the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the said issue at his end but restored the issue back to the AO for verification and passing the order afresh. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the Ld. AR brought to our attention that in the order passed by the AO u/s 251 the disallowance of ₹ 21,81,06,060/- u/s 40(a)(ia) was not retained by the AO on being satisfied that the addition was uncalled for. Besides the Ld. AR also submitted that in the assessment u/s 143(3), such disallowance was not made and no incriminating document or evidence was found in the course of search on 18.02.2013 to justify the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. CIT, DR could not controvert these factual aspects of the matter. After considering the rival submissions, we note that the issue involved stands in favour of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and alleged commission paid thereon, respectively. It is the appellant s contention that no incriminating document or evidence was unearthed in the course of search, which would justify the impugned additions and therefore urged that these additions be held legally unsustainable. The submissions both the parties were on identical lines as discussed in AY 2008-09 above. After considering the rival submissions, it is observed that the issue involved in this ground is identical to Ground No.1 of assessee appeal in A.Y. 2008-09. In the AY 2008-09, the AO had added back the share subscription monies of ₹ 90,00,000/- and commission paid thereon of ₹ 45,000/- referring to certain statements given by alleged entry operators. The reasons for making these additions in the year under consideration are same as discussed in the assessment order for AY 2008-09. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was also passed on identical lines on which the addition was confirmed in the appellate order for AY 2008-09. As there is no change in material facts in the AY 2009-10, following our conclusions drawn in A.Y. 2008-09, we hold that since the AO did not establi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00,000/- on account of evasion of railway freight. At the onset it was brought to our attention that in the impugned order the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the said issues at his end but restored these issues back to the AO for verification and passing the order afresh. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the Ld. AR brought to our attention that in the order passed u/s 251 the AO being satisfied with the assessee s explanation, himself refrained from retaining those additions in the total income assessed in the order passed u/s 251 of the Act. Besides the Ld. AR also submitted that in the original assessment u/s 143(3), such disallowances were not made and no incriminating document or evidence was found in the course of search on 18.02.2013 to justify these additions. The Ld. CIT, DR could not controvert these factual aspects of the matter. After considering the rival submissions, we note that the issues involved stands decided in favour of the assessee in view of the factual findings given by the AO in his order u/s 251 of the Act. We also find merit in the primary contention of the assessee that these additions were legally untenable as the AO was unable to correlate them with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as the AO was unable to correlate them with any incriminating document or evidence found in the course of search. For the reasons set out in the foregoing, Ground Nos. 2 to 4 of the assessee s appeal stands allowed and Ground No. 2 of the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. 30. Ground No. 1 of the Revenue s appeal is against the relief allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of loss of ₹ 1,75,000/- on sale of fixed assets. We note from the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) that in arriving at the returned income the assessee had suo moto added back the loss on sale of fixed assets which was added back again by the AO while passing the order u/s 153A. Taking note of the double disallowance, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the same. At the time of hearing the Ld. CIT, DR could not controvert this factual finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and in that view of the matter we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). This ground therefore stands dismissed. 31. Now coming to the cross appeals for AY 2012-13 in ITA (SS) Nos. 29/Kol/2016 41/Kol/2016; we note that the main grievance in Ground Nos. 1 to 7 of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he filed copies of the assessment orders dated 31.03.2015 passed u/s 153C/143(3) for the AYs 2007-08 to 2013-14. With reference to these orders, he pointed out that the assessment records of M/s. Mundat Securities Services Pvt. Ltd were centralized to the charge of ACIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata as a consequence of the search conducted in the case of Rashmi Group . In other words, the AO of the appellant as well the share applicant was one and the same and in both the cases the assessment orders were framed on 31.03.2015. The Ld. AR further invited our attention to the fact that in the audited accounts of the share applicant company the investment made in the appellant company s shares was disclosed. In the income-tax assessment order passed for AY 2012-13 dated 31.03.2015 u/s 153C/143(3), the same AO did not draw any adverse inference with regard to the source of the monies invested by M/s. Mundat Securities Services Pvt. Ltd in the share capital of the appellant. The Ld. AR therefore argued that if in the assessment of the share applicant, the same AO accepted the genuineness of the transaction involving payment of share application monies to the appellant then it was not open for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me AO who passed the impugned assessment order. We therefore find that both in the case of the appellant company as well as M/s. Mundat Securities Services Pvt. Ltd the assessment orders for AY 2007-08 to 2013-14 were simultaneously passed after conducting thorough enquiries and investigation. Neither the AO nor the Ld. DR could dispute the fact that the investment made in the equity of appellant was duly disclosed in the books of the share applicant. We also note that in the same accounts of the share-applicant, the source of making investment was also recorded. From the assessment order of M/s Mundat Securities and Services Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2012-13 passed u/s 153C dated 31.03.2015, we note that no adverse finding was recorded by the same AO in relation to its transactions involving purchase of shares of the appellant and source of making such investments was accepted by the same AO. We also find that nowhere in the assessment orders passed for any of the seven years the AO recorded any finding to the effect that M/s. Mundat Securities Services Pvt. Ltd was either a shell company or jamakharchi company engaged in providing accommodation entries. On the contrary we find that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made on account of alleged commission paid for obtaining accommodation entries in the form of share capital. In view of our finding with regard to Ground Nos. 1 to 7 above, the impugned addition of ₹ 32,22,558/- has no legs to stand on and is accordingly deleted. This ground stands allowed. 35. Ground No. 9 of assessee s appeal and Ground No. 2 of Revenue s appeal are against the addition of ₹ 74,98,000/- on account of evasion of railway freight. At the onset it was brought to our attention that in the impugned order the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the said issue at his end but restored this issue back to the AO for verification and passing the order afresh. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the Ld. AR brought to our attention that in the order passed u/s 251 the AO being satisfied with the assessee s explanation, himself refrained from retaining this addition in the total income assessed in the order passed u/s 251 of the Act. The Ld. CIT, DR could not controvert this factual aspect of the matter. After considering the rival submissions, we note that the issues involved stands decided in favour of the assessee in view of the factual findings give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -. These facts in AO s opinion established his conclusion that the appellant was unable to explain the genuineness of the transaction. According to AO the entire transaction lacked commercial substance and therefore he concluded that the amount received by the appellant from M/s. Pragya Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd was assessable as income u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A).Before the Ld. CIT(A) the appellant brought to his notice that in the income-tax assessment of M/s. Pragya Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd framed for AY 2013-14, the ITO, Ward 1(1), Kolkata had made an addition on account of unexplained cash credits of ₹ 51,57,01,340/- which inter alia included the source of monies of ₹ 35,85,00,000/- invested by the share applicant in the appellant company. It was therefore urged that when the Department had treated the sum of ₹ 35,85,00,000/- as income of M/s. Pragya Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd, then in the same breath the same amount could not be treated to be the undisclosed monies of the appellant company as well. Having regard to these facts, the Ld. CIT(A) set aside the addition back to the file of the AO with the direction to verify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since the Ld. CIT(A) does not enjoy the power to set aside the issue to AO to re-examine, and we have the power to do so, we modify the Ld. CIT(A) s order and hold that the directions contained in the Ld. CIT(A) s order be regarded as integral part of the order passed by this Tribunal and the AO is directed to re-frame the assessment on this issue keeping in view the directions contained in Para 4 at page 40,41 and 42 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Before doing so, the AO shall give sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground No. 1 of the Revenue s appeal is treated as partly allowed as discussed above. 40. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue s appeal is against the relief allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of loss of ₹ 2,85,000/- on sale of fixed assets. We note from the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) that in arriving at the returned income the assessee had suo-moto added back loss on sale of fixed assets which was added back again by the AO while passing the order u/s 143(3). Taking note of the double disallowance, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the same. At the time of hearing the Ld. CIT, DR could not controvert t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
