TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e basis of material collected by him and since they were not compared with the books of accounts and the assessee was not provided with the opportunity to explain her case, we set aside this issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to cause compare the alleged undisclosed investments with the books of account. CIT (A) may get a remand report from AO in this regard. If any investment is found not recorded in the books of account, to seek explanation from the assessee and take appropriate decision after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Disallowance of deduction on account of interest expenditure - HELD THAT:- Following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench we restore this ground of appeal back to the file of the AO with the direction to follow the direction of the Tribunal passed in SHRI HITESH S. MEHTA, [ 2013 (11) TMI 1650 - ITAT MUMBAI] - ITA No 3890/MUM/2012 - - - Dated:- 20-7-2016 - SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) For the Appellant by : Shri. Dharmesh Shah For the Respondent by : Shri. Dr. P. Daniel. ORDER PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 18/01/2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e net accretion method adopted by the Assessing Officer for determination of the total income. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have accepted book results shown by the appellant. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held that determination of total income of appellant by considering net accretion to various assets as under is wholly erroneous and unsustainable. Particulars Amounts (Rs.) Net accretion to the other assets (-) 3,65,93,656 Net accretion to shareholding 8,29,86,623 Declaration by Late Shri Harshad S. Mehta 24,00,000 Total .... 4,87,92,967 Add: Personal expenses 1,45,647 Total Net accretion to the non-revenue accounts 4,89,38,614 5. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the correct quantity of purchase and sale of shares should be adopted as per the books of acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,666 13. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the levy of interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 4. Since the appellant has moved an application for condonation of delay of 55 days in filing the present appeal, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay in filing appeal was neither intentional nor willful act on the part of the assessee but it has happened due to the reason that all assets of the assessee had been attached and the applicant had to move an application for sanction and release of statutory fees in terms of section 3(4) of the Special Courts Act and after obtaining order from the court the assessee filed the present appeal. After hearing the Ld. departmental representative, we allowed the application for condonation of delay in the interest of justice holding that the aforesaid circumstances are sufficient to condone the delay in filing the present appeal. Hence, we allowed the Ld. Counsel to argue the case on merits. 5. On merits, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the grounds raised in the present appeal are identical to the grounds raised in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Coordinate Bench in the case of Shri. Hitesh S. Mehta (supra) has allowed the corresponding Grounds holding as under: 11. As we have directed the Ld. CIT(A) to compute the taxable income as per books of account of the assessee qua in ground No. 3, additions contested for ground No. 4,5, 6 are deleted. Ground No 4 to 6 are accordingly allowed. 11. Since, we have directed the Ld. CIT(A) to compute the taxable income as per books of account of the assessee, we delete the additions contested vide Ground No 4,5 6 of this appeal. Ground No. 4, 5 6 are accordingly allowed. 12. Ground No. 7 is also identical to the corresponding Ground No. 7 raised in the case of Hitesh S. Mehta (supra). The Co-ordinate bench has allowed the ground No.7 of the appeal holding as under:- One of the basic principles of natural justice is that no evidence collected behind the back of the assessee could be used against the assessee unless an opportunity is given to the assessee to rebut the same. As the Revenue authorities have grossly erred in relying upon the evidences collected behind the back of the assessee, the additions based on such materials deserves to be deleted. We, accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
