TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similar way in other years of the assessee company. Such an issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2011-12 has upheld the deletion of similar additions made in respect of `Advertisement expenses incurred by the assessee for which notices were issued u/s 133(6) of the Act but no compliance was made. Since the facts and circumstances of the instant ground are mutatis mutandis similar, respectfully following the precedent, we uphold the impugned order in deleting this addition. Assessment u/s 153A - Addition u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- On a pertinent query, the ld. AR could not produce a copy of the computation of income or its original assessment order, which was stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in these appeals, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Assessment Year 2006-07 2. The only issue raised by the Revenue in this appeal is against the deletion of addition of ₹ 3,67,14,462/-. 3. Succinctly, the factual matrix of the case is that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act ) was carried out on M/s Jaipuria group of cases on 27.03.2012. Notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee, pursuant to which a return of income was filed. The Assessing Officer observed that huge Advertisement expenses were claimed to have been incurred. On being called upon to furn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer did not conduct any further inquiry. He simply proceeded to make the addition without ascertaining the genuineness or otherwise of these transactions. His inference of non-genuineness of the transactions was based simply on non-compliance by these two parties, whose complete particulars were with him. In case of non-compliance, the AO ought to have deputed Inspector or got the enquiry conducted by any other means before jumping to the conclusion of the non-genuineness of the transactions. It is further pertinent to note that additions were made in similar way in other years of the assessee company. Such an issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the assessment years 200910 and 2011-12. Vide order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5% of average investments and added it back in the computation of total income. He found that the Assessing Officer did not record any satisfaction before proceeding to make any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. In the absence of recording of such a satisfaction, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to ₹ 13,89,653/- and deleted the remaining addition. Both the sides are in appeal on their respective stands. 9. We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. The ld. AR contended that the ld. CIT(A) wrongly recorded the fact about the assessee having suo motu disallowed ₹ 13,89,653/-. Relying on the Tribunal order for the A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2011-12 passed in the assessee s own case, the ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remit the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for examining, firstly, if the assessee filed its return u/s 139 of the Act or offered disallowance of ₹ 13.89 lac in the original return or any such addition was made. If it is found that no return was filed or the disallowance was so offered or an addition made in the order u/s 143(3) of the Act that, then, such a disallowance has to be repeated in the assessment made u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act. In the otherwise scenario, the ratio laid down in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) will apply and the addition will stand deleted. The ground raised by the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed and that taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
