TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O to reopen the assessment beyond period of four years. It has been widely held by the Courts that it is not necessary to prove beyond doubt that income has escaped assessment and it is sufficient that the AO has recorded his reasons and followed the due procedure of law for reopening of the assessment. In .view of factual matrix of the present case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the AO that this was a fit case for reopening of the assessment and accordingly the contentions and Grounds of the appellant are dismissed. Addition on account of share capital and share premium - In the factual matrix of the present case, where entries had been taken from paper companies and Credit worthiness of the Parties as well as the genuineness of the transaction had not been discharged by the appellant, there was no justification to accept the contentions of the AR Of the appellant that the additions were not justified. Accordingly, after careful consideration of the facts of 'the present case, there is no material or submissions provided by the AR of the appellant, which calls for any interference In the decisions of the AO. Accordingly, this addition of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 52,59,189/- and assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 27.10.2008 at income of ₹ 66,17,980/- Now, an information has been received from the office of Director of Income Tax (Inv.)- II, New Delhi that assessee company has obtained accommodation entries of amount totaling to ₹ 90, 00,000/- during the F.Y. 2005-06 relevant to A.Y. 2006-07 in the form of bogus share capital/premium/loan from Sh. Surender Kumar Jain Group (entry operator) where search/survey action ids 132/133.4 had been conducted on 14.09.2010. Therefore, I have reason to believe in terms of section 147 0/ the I.T. Act that income to the tune of ₹ 90,00, 000/- has escaped assessment. Issue notices u/s 148 of the I.T. Act for the A.Y. 2006-07. Dated: 22.03.2013 Sd/- (Gireeh Kumar Kohli) Asstt. Conunissioner of Income-tax Circle, Karnal. 2. In reply to this notice, assessee vide letter dated 03.04.2013stated that return filed on 29.11.2006 may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148. Copy of reasons recorded for issue of notice u/s 148 was also supplied to the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urn under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub- section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. Explanation (I) to section 147 reads as under:- Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the foregoing proviso. In your case, no further query in respect of share capital introduced during the year was raised during the assessment proceedings, neither any detail is placed on file. In the return, only amount of share premium is mentioned. Notice toys 148 has been issued on the basis of new tangible material received from the Departmental's sources, which is specific in nature and reliable in character. In the case of Pal Jain vs ITO [2004] 267 ITR 540 (P H), Punjab Haryana High Court following Phool Chand Bajrang Lal's [203 ITR 456 (SC)] has held that mere disclosure Of a transaction does not offer immunity from reassessment, where a tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concluded assessment in such a case. It is correct that the assessing authority could have deferred tie completion of the original assessment proceedings for further enquiry and investigation into the genuineness to the loan transaction but his failure to do so and complete the original assessment proceedings would, not take away his jurisdiction to act inder section 147, on receipt of the information subsequently. In the instant case, the subsequent information on the basis of which the ITO acquired reasons to believe that income chargeable to lax had escaped assessment on account of the omission of the assessee to make a full and true disclosure of the primary facts was relevant, reliable and specific. It was not at all vague or non-specific. From a combined review of the judgments of the apex Court, it follows that an ITO acquires jurisdiction to reopen assessment under section 147(a) read with section 148 only if on the basis of specific, reliable and relevant information coming to his possession subsequently, he has reasons, which he must record, to believe that by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a true and ful ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of original assessment and when that falsity comes to notice, to turn around and say 'you accepted my lie, now your hands are tied and you can do nothing'. It would, be traversty of Justice to allow the assessee that latitude. Twin conditions set out by the apex Court as above are met in your case. In the case of AGR Investments Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT others (Del.) 303 ITR 146 Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under:- The word reason' in the phrase 'reason 10 believe' would mean cause or justification. If the Assessing Officer has a cause or justification to think or to suppose that income has escaped assessment, he can be said to have a reason to believe that such income had escaped assessment. The words 'reason to believe' cannot mean that the 'Assessing Officer' should have finally ascertained the facts by legal evidence. They only mean that he forms a belief from the examination he makes and if he likes, from any information he receives. If he discovers or finds or satisfies himself that the taxable income has escaped assessment, it would amount to saying that he has reason to believe that s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court with regard to the merits o the controversy. In fact, it required the Court to adjudge the sufficiency Of the material a to make a roving enquiry that the initiation of proceedings under sections 147 and 148 was not tenable. The same does not come within the ambit and sweep of exercise of power under article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was open to the assessee to participate in the reassessment proceedings and to put forth its stand and stance in details to satisfy the Assessing Officer that there was no escapement of taxable income. [Para 23] Consequently, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. [Para 24] Reliance is also placed on the judgments of apex Court delivered in the case Of Parashuram Pottery Works co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC) and Calcutta Discount co. Ltd. vs. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) that the words 'omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year' postulates a duty on the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. 3. Further you have contended that the Assessing Officer initiated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d about the genuineness is not. satisfactory in the opinion of AO because of reasons discussed in this show cause as reproduced below:- No. ACIT/KNL/2013-14/ Office of the Asstt. Commissioner of Income tax, Circle, Karnal Dated: 27.03.2014 To M/S Ram Dev Rice Pvt- Ltd., V PO Daha, Distr. Karnal D/Sirs, Sub:- Show cause notice for completing assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT Act. for the A. Y. 2006-07 - Regarding- *** Please refer to the above. 2. In this connection and in continuation to earlier correspondence in this regard, it is stated that various seized documents which were seized from S.K. Jain Group, accommodation entry provider in Delhi which has a bearing with your case form part of the enclosure attached with this show cause notice. From the perusal of statement of Sh. Surendra Kumar Jain, he has owned up annexure A-1 to A-163, seized by Investigation Wing, Delhi that they have been obtained from his premises and they belong either to him or to She Virendra Kumar Jain. Of relevance to yo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turned income including nil figure. A prudent business concern would have used its fund judiciously to earn more income out of capital. The subscriber companies in, this context are not doing justice to their shareholders by not earning enough income by not investing wisely. Such correlation of huge shareholder fund with low returned income is the characteristic of entry operator companies, where huge shareholder fund in the form of share capital and share premium is built through routing of money to fund the beneficiary company with capital and share premium. It is this design which serves as conduit for accommodation entry'. Also, upon perusal of MCA data of one of the subscri4er company to the assessee company one of the director Sh. Kumar Sharma as on 27.03.2014 is director in 11 companies. The investor companies and Sh. Surendra Jain and Virendra Jain were issued summons. But they did not attend the hearing- What is apparent may not be real and test of human probability has to be applied to understand if the apparent is real and if the transaction fails to withstand the test of human probabilities it has to be taken as ingenuine tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment Year 2006-07. Sub- Reply to Show Cause Notice Sir, Please refer your show cause notice dated 27th March 2014, where in inter alia the assessee is show caused to explain why the share capital and share premium received by assessee during the year under review should not be charged to Tax u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard without prejudice to our earlier submissions filed before Your Honor during the Assessment Proceeding we on behalf of above named assessee respectfully wish to submit as follows:- 01. During the year under review the assessee received share capital and Share Premium of ₹ 9000000/- from corporate assessee through proper Banking channel. The amount received through proper banking channel is not in doubt as per show cause notice. The genuineness of transaction is proved, as receipt of share capital is through proper banking channel. 02. To further substantiate the transactions, we would like to prove the identity of shareholders and creditworthiness of shareholders, the assessee has submitted the following documentary evidences. (The same is submitted with this r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur hands:- a. The Hon'ble Supreme court Of India in special leave petition no. cc. 375/ 2008 Dated 21.01.2008 in the case of commissioner of Income Tax V. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. Reported in 216- CTR - 195 Held That:- The Share Application money is received by Assessee Company from alleged bogus Share Holders, whose names are given to the Assessing officer then the Department is free to proceed to re-open their individual assessment in accordance with law. Hence we find no infirmity with the impugned judgment The Department SLP was dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the above stated case, which arises from the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the Case of divine Leasing Finance Ltd. Reported in 2007-158-Texmann-440(Del) wherein their lordship decided the issue in favor of Assessee. b. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 23 d December, 2011. In bunch of 11 appeals taking the lead case as ITA no. 972/2009 dated 23.122011 in the case of CIT vs. Kantdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. since Reported in 2012 - 68 - DTR - 38 Del and approved by Apex Court o India by dismissing the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , this could be another factor leading towards the suspicion nurtured by the AO. Further, if the returns were filed and scrutiny thereof reveals that such returns were for namesake, this could yet another be contributing factor in the direction AO wanted to go. Likewise, when the bank statements were filed, the AO could find out the address given by those applicant companies in the bank, who opened the bank accounts and are the signatories, who introduced those bank accounts and the manner in which transactions were carried out and the bank accounts operated. This kind of inquiry would have given some more material to the AO to find out as to whether the assessee can be convicted with the transactions which were allegedly bogus and or companies were also bogus and were treated for namesake. We say so with more emphasis because of the reason that normally such kind of presumption against the assessee cannot be made as per the law laid down in various Judgments noted above. Just because of the creditors/share applicants could not be found at the address given it would not give the Revenue a right to invoke Section 68 of the Act without any additional material to support such a move. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be maintained while walking on the tight rope of Sections 68 and 69 of the Act. On the on hand, no doubt, such kind of dubious practices are rampant, on the other hand, merely because there is an acknowledgement of such practices would not mean that in any of such cases coming before the Court, the Court has to presume that the assessee in questions as indulged in that practice To make the assessee responsible, there has to be proper evidence. It is equally important that an innocent person cannot be fastened with liability without cogent evidence. One has to see the matter from the point of view of such companies (like the assessee herein) who invite the share application money from different sources or even public at large. It would be asking for a moon if such companies aye asked to find oat from each and every share applicant/subscribers to first satisfy the assessee companies about the source of their funds before investing. It is for this reason the balance is struck by catena of judgments in laying down that the Department is not remediless and is free to proceed to reopen the individual of such alleged bogus shareholders in accordance with the law. That was precisely the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come of the assessee. This has not been done in so far as the present case is concerned and that has been noted by the tribunal also under the circumstances, we are of the view that the tribunal has not committed any error in deleting the addition. No substantial question of law arises, Dismissed f. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Hi h Court o Delhi in the case of CIT V. Divine Leasing Finance Ltd, General Export Credits Ltd. And Lovely Exports P. Ltd. Reported in 2008-299-ITR-268 (Del) held that:- Head Note:- Cash credits - company - Amounts shown as share capital effect of section 68 - burden of proof - assessee must prove identity of shareholders, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of shareholders - No adverse inference if shareholders fail to respond to notice by Assessing officer -- Duty of Assessing Officer to investigate credit worthiness of shareholders -finding that Assessee company had proved genuineness of shareholders- Additions of part of Share Capital under section 68 -Not justified- income tax Act, 1961, s. 68. Approved by Apex Court of India in 2009 - 216 - CTR -195 (SC) CITvs. Lovely Expor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these shareholders. The case of assessee for the year under review was picked up for scrutiny by Ld Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Karnal, and after detail investigation the share capital and share premium of the assessee was accepted as genuine. Hence action of Ld. Assessing Officer to re-examine the same issue which is decided in favour by assessee by his predecessor after detail examination amount to review, and review is not allowed in law. Authorities on these points are:- CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Reported in 2010 - 320 - ITR - 561 (SC), where in the Apex Court of India held that the AO does not have power to review , 2012 - 77- DIR -396 (Del) (FB) CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. a. From the perusal of the reason, it is evident that the action has been initiated upon suspicion and there is no material with the department for formation of the necessary belief. The assessee has already requested that the Return Of Income filed on 29th November 2006 may kindly be treated as filed in compliance to the notice under section 148 of the Act. b. The relevant extracts from the Supreme Court decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re illegal for the following reasons: It is evident from the reasons recorded u/s. 148 that no enquiry has been made by your good self independently and the notice has been issued merely at behest of the investigation wing. Kindly permit us to mention that the entire exercise is based upon pure guess and suspicion. When the department seeks to allege that the share capital received during the year by are ACCOMODATION ENTRIES , it is settled principal of law that the department has to prove the same by laying positive, cogent, specific and reliable evidence about it. Reference may kindly be made to the following: Kalwa Devadattam v. UOI (1963) 49 ITR 165, 174 (SC) CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) CIT v Daulatram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349, 360-1 (SC) In similar circumstances, special bench of ITAT has held that any general information contained in letter of Assistant Commissioner, Investigation Circle, is not relevant material to sustain initiation of reassessment proceedings. Since information coming to assessing officer was neither specific, nor reliable and relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the back and behind of the assessee and these facts were never brought on record by your good self in assessment proceedings. Hence, it do not have any evidential value. For this proposition reliance is placed on following decisions, where in it was held that:- if the copy of adverse material gathered behind the back of assessee relied by Assessing Officer without providing/ disclosing the same to assessee would be lack of opportunity and this right is so fundamental that it cannot rectified by appellate authority by giving suck opportunity . 2001-249 -ITR-554(SC) Vijay Kumar Sharma 2001-249-ITR-216(SC) Tin Box Co. 1980-125 -ITR- 713 (SC) Kishan Chand Chela Ram Another allegation of in show cause notice is that the directors of Share Holders Company and their Books of Account are not produced for verification In this regard we most respectfully wish to submit that, it was never asked to produce the Directors of share Holdings Company or their Books of Account. Let it be as it is Your Honor, the appellant respectfully wish to put it record and submit that the shareholders are existing, assessed to Income Tax an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attention of Your Honor is also invited on the latest decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In the case of CIT vs. KansalFincap P. Ltd. Reported in 2013 - TIOL - 814 - HC - Del -IT dated 04.10.2013. where in it was held that: The AO should objectively examine the whole issue and in case if he finds that the transactions are genuine and fully recorded by share holders, then no addition shall be made in hands of assessee In other words two conditions have to be satisfied, firstly the transaction should be genuine, true and not camouflage and secondly the transaction should duly recorded in the Books of share applicants, if these two conditions are satisfied then no addition should be made . 2. In addition to above the assessee place reliance on following decision. a. The Hon'ble Supreme court or India in special leave petition no. cc. 375/ 2008 Dated 21.01.2008 in the case of commissioner of Income Tax V. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. Reported in 216- CTR -195 Held That:- The Share Application money is received by Assessue Company from alleged bogus Share Holders, whose names are given to the Assessing officer then ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee has been duly considered but not found sustainable. The evidence obtained from Investigation wing which were discussed in the show cause notice and a copy of which was sent to the assessee for perusal and reply were all seized from Sh. Surendra Kumar Jain and Sh. Virendra Kumar Jain and belong to them. The threadbare analysis of evidence alongwith statement of Sh. Surendra Kumar Jain and Sh-Virendra Kumar Jain will reveal the nature of their work. This threadbare analysis is necessary because assessee contends that no incriminating documents have been found from SK. Jain Group and they have not admitted anything in this statement. This will also establish how they operated and managed hundreds of companies and concern including 4 shareholders companies namely KDG Properties and Construction Pvt. Ltd., Karishma Industries Ltd., Vogue Leasing and Finance P. Ltd. and World link Telecom Ltd. For a search which took place on 14.09.2D10, it will be difficult to exactly find all the evidence from cash book to bank entry for a period belonging to F. Y, 2005-06. Seizure of certain documents which point towards the fact that investor companies are controlled by entry operators shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eference to blank signed cheques, he is evasive. -via Q.No.13 when cheques books and pass book pertaining to different individual entities, companies totaling 198 in no. was asked from him he again remained evasive. -via Q.No.17 on page no.19 of the statement when confronted with his evasive tendency with regard to self explanatory descriptive contents, he is again uncooperative. -via Q.No.18 on page 21 of the statement, on a reference to Annexure A-163, he remains evasive. -via Q.No.19 on page 22 of the statement, a self explanatory entry pertaining to accommodation entry to a beneficiary company, from page 315 of the Annexure No. A- 163, he remains evasive. Inference Thus it can be seen that KDG Properties and Construction Pvt. Ltd., Karishma Industries Ltd., Vogue Leasing and Finance P. Ltd. and Worldlink Telecom Ltd. are entities controlled by S.K. Jain Group as can be evidenced from the copy of evidence as part of enclosure attached with show cause notice. 6. Assessee's contention that no incriminating document related to them have been found is not acceptable as documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment has already by means of cogent evidence pointed out towards ingenuineness of transaction by means of show cause notice. Assessee contention that notices sent to shareholders have been received back is not true. Summons were issued to the Directors of investor company with the object of enquiry about nature and source of share capital. Also, the idea was to give opportunity to the assessee to cross examine these investors but they never turned up. 10. As has already been discussed in the show cause notice with regard to characteristic of investor companies that they show tell tale signs of entry operator companies. It is not necessary to establish that money has originated from the coffers of assessee, The contention that the Revenue must have evidence to show circulation of money from the assessee to the third party is fallacious and has been repeatedly rejected, even when Section 68 of the Act was not in the statute. In A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807, Supreme Court observed that it was not the duty of the Revenue to adduce evidence to show from what source, income was derived and why it should be treated as concealed income. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO, on the facts and- circumstances of the case, to establish with the help of material on record that the share monies had come or emanated from the assessee's coffers. Section 68 of the IT Act casts no such burden on AO. This aspect has been considered more than 50 years back by Supreme Court in the case of A Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 where previously the same argument was adduced before the Supreme Court on behalf of the assessee. The argument was rejected by Court. 12. The evidences as discussed in show cause notice are sufficient to prove that these companies are controlled by entry operator and thus transactions are ingenuine. Reliance is placed on the decision of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman 85/214 801 (SC). The Courts have laid emphasis on test of human probabilities. What is apparent may not be real and test of human probabilities has to be applied to understand if the apparent is real and if the transaction fails to withstand the test of human probabilities it has to be taken as ingenuine transactions even if documentary evidence suggest otherwise. The same principle has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e u/s 148 was also supplied to the assessee and the objections were disposed off. The AO has -also highlighted that the decision of Kelvjnator India Ltd. 256 ITR was not applicable since at the time of earlier assessment proceedings, no details have been placed on file and also in the present case, new tangible material had been received. The AO relied upon the decisions of Pal Jain 267 ITR (P H) Phool Chand Bajrang Lai (203 ITR) (SC) to argue that in this case there were valid reasons and justification for reopening of the assessment even beyond four years. From Pages 4 to 7 the AO has elaborately discussed the fresh information available with the AO, the due procedure followed for reopening of the assessment, as well as various judicial pronouncements on the basis of which on the facts of the present case, the reopening of the assessment was fully justified. c) The AO reproduced various letters and details which were sent alongwith notice u/s 143(2) and 143(1) seeking various details and relying upon various judicial pronouncements on this issue. The AO hag therefore emphasized that fresh material was available with the assessee and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the assessment order to highlight such omission or failure to disclosed fully and truly all material facts what clearly justified reopening of the assessment beyond four years. Though the AR of the appellant had argued that since there was no fresh material available with the AO to justify reopening of the assessment, the facts clearly indicate that specific details and evidences based upon survey/search action had been obtained and passed on to the AO with regard to amounts received from entry operators. It is therefore clear that such information passed on investigation and search/survey operation were not available with the AO at the time of original assessment u/s 143(3) of the LT. Act. In view of the present facts, and also keeping in view various judicial pronouncements of Rajat Import Ltd. 341 ITR Delhi (2012) and the decision of AGR Investments (2011) 333 ITR (Delhi) as well as the decision of Contel Medicare System (349 ITR) (DEL) (2012), it is clear that in the present case there was enough evidence and justification with the AO to reopen the assessment beyond period of four years. It has been widely held by the Courts that it is not necess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... managed by S.K. Jain Group to v provide bogus entries to different parties including the assessee. f) The AO has also referred to statements of Sh. Virender Kumar Jain and Sh. Surender Jain where during the course of the Statements both the persons have owned up various Incriminating documents s which were related to provide entries to different parties through shell companies operating from same addresses and not having, any genuine activity or income. In this regard, the AO has elaborately discussed from Para 6 to 10 of the assessment order, as to how there was specific material relating to the assessee company to establish that artificial paper companies with no genuine business activity had been used to provide accommodation entries to the assessee. g) The AO has relied upon various judicial pronouncements including CIT Vs. Independent Media Ltd. (201 Taxman)(Delhi)(2012) to argue that under similar facts Courts have held that considering the overall test of human probabilities as well as facts of the case, addition of ₹ 90 Lacs in the case of the assessee was fully justified. 4.2 A.R. Submissions :- The AR of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no dispute that the amount of ₹ 90 Lacs had been received by the appellant as share capital/share premium from four parties as discussed in detail in the assessment order. The AO has made addition by observing that these four parties were actually only paper companies run by Sh. S. K. Jain Group on whom search and survey operations had been conducted by the Investigation wing. Incriminating documents relating to the appellant company had also been found and statements of Sh. Surender Jain She Virender Jain had been recorded. The AO has elaborately discussed the specific documents as well as the nature of income and activity carried out by the four parties from whom the share capital/share premium had been received. It is clear that these four entities had characteristics of being only paper entities operating from a common address with negligible or no business activity but with large amount of shareholder funds and impressive Balance Sheets. b) In the present case, it is important to keep in mind that even though these four entities did not have any significant business activity or high returned income, nor there was any potential for earning huge prof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 17.11.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A). At the time of hearing, Revenue was represented by Shri Surender Pal, the learned Senior Departmental Representative ( Ld. Sr. DR , for short). However, none was present from the assessee s side. In the absence of any representation from assessee s side, at the time of hearing before us, we heard the Ld. Sr. DR; who relied upon the order dated 31.03.2014 of the Assessing Officer and the aforesaid impugned order dated 17.11.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A). After perusal of the materials on record, including the order of the AO and the aforesaid impugned order dated 17.11.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed speaking order on merits. Relevant portion of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) has already been reproduced in foregoing paragraph [C] of this order. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given detailed reasons for his decision on merits in the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 17.11.2016 of Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT , for short) no material has been brought for our consideration to persuade us to take a view different from the v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
