9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) found that the assessee has shown sales of Rs. 1,14,91,494/- and further income of Rs. 9 lakhs. Therefore, it cannot be said that no expenditure was incurred to earn the abovesaid income. Referring to the remand report filed by the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) came to the conclusion that at the best, the expenditure to the extent of Rs. 3,66,23,924/- can be disallowed and accordingly, deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs. 3.74 crores. The Revenue is challenging the relief granted by the CIT(A). However, the assessee has also filed cross objection challenging the order of the CIT(A) where the disallowance of Rs. 3,66,23,294/- was confirmed. 4. Referring to the copy of the remand report, the ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has not said that the assessee has incurred any expenditure. After considering the reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer found that the expenditure to the extent of Rs. 3,66,23,924/- cannot be allowed. The Assessing Officer has not said that the balance amount can be allowed as claimed by the assessee. The CIT(A) by misconstruing the remand report filed by the Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... written off to the extent of Rs. 2,58,07,541/-, the ld. Counsel submitted that the value of the discarded assets were written off in the books of account, therefore, the written down value of the assets has to be allowed as deduction while computing the taxable income. Referring to the financial expenses of Rs. 72,31,718/-, the ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee has furnished the entire details, therefore, the Assessing Officer is not justified in saying that the assessee has filed details only for payment of Rs. 38,53,335/-. According to the ld. Counsel, the assessee has produced evidence for the entire financial expenses of Rs. 72,31,718/-, therefore, the CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition. 6. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. As rightly submitted by the ld. DR and the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire expenditure of Rs. 7,40,55,450/- on the ground that the assessee has not filed the books of account and other evidence to support the claim of the expenditure. The assessee now claims before this Tribunal that all the materials were produced before the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esses of the persons who paid the capital advance, therefore, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 6,17,81,000/-. On the basis of the details filed by the assessee before the CIT(A), a remand report was filed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee has not filed any books of account or other material to support the claim of share capital advance. In the absence of any material, the Assessing Officer found in the remand report that the share capital advance cannot be taken as capital receipt. However, the CIT(A) found that the share capital advances were made through banking channels and shares were allotted in the subsequent financial year. According to the ld. DR, merely because the transactions were made through banking channel, that cannot be a reason to allow the claim of the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A) ought not to have deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The ld. DR placed his reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease P. Ltd., 342 ITR 169. 9. On the contrary, Shri N. Devanathan, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the year under consideration the assessee has received share capit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. 10. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. As rightly submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, there is no allegation that the share application money was emanated from the corpus of the assessee. The assessee has filed the names and addresses of the share applicants. Therefore, it was for the Assessing Officer to examine further. Merely because the share applicants are from Andhra Pradesh, that cannot be a reason to disallow the claim of the assessee. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the same is confirmed. 11. Now coming to the cross objection of the assessee, the first ground is with regard to reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. 12. We heard the ld. Counsel for the assessee and the ld. DR. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has not filed the return of income in the regular course. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s. 148 on 8.2.2010. Subsequently a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was also issued. Consequent to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
