9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (7) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was the further case of the assessee that said reply dt. 16th May, 1989, was not accepted by the ITO and as such the same was submitted in the office under the acknowledgement receipt No. 187989, dt. 16th May, 1989. It was further the case of the assessee that to its utter surprise the assessment order was already passed as back as on 31st March, 1989, without considering the details already submitted and books of accounts filed earlier. The grievance of the assessee was that the assessment was completed at Rs. 5,63,100 against the returned income of Rs. 80,390 having made several additions and disallowances. To the contrary, the case of the Revenue is that the show-cause notice dt. 22nd Feb., 1989 was issued and served upon the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal on merits. Against the said order of the learned CIT(A) now the Revenue are in appeal and as stated above the first grievance is that the learned CIT(A) should not have concluded that the show cause notice was served much after the date on which the assessment order was alleged to have been passed and further that if the assessment was done in haste he ought to have set aside the assessment order with a direction to the AO to reframe the same. 3. We have heard Shri R.N. Tripathi, the learned Departmental Representative and Shri K.H. Shah, the learned counsel of the assessee on this point. From the material available in the appeal record, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A). In fact, in the appeal record there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both sides and have gone through the appeal record including the P&L account and the balance sheet of the past years compiled at pages 1 to 9 of the paper book. It is to be further noted that while giving effect to the appellate order there again arose dispute as to allowability of the deduction under s. 80-I. The AO made further enquiries whether the item manufactured by the assessee was listed in Sch. 11. The assessee by its letter dt. 30th March, 1990 replied that the item it manufactured was not listed in Sch. 11 but that letter did not seem to have been considered by the AO and he did not allow deduction under s. 80-I. However, the matter was again re-agitated in appeal and the CIT(A) IV, Ahmedabad by his order dt. 14th Feb., 1991 dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the material available in the appeal record, on this point also we do not see reason to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A). We confirm his order on this point. 8. The next disputed point relates to allowance of Rs. 24,000 representing service charges paid to sister concern M/s Radiant Engineering & Manufacturing works. According to the AO, the assessee failed to furnish details in respect of those expenses and so, according to him, these expenses were not attributable to the business of the assessee firm and, accordingly, he disallowed the claim of the assessee. Before the learned CIT(A) it was submitted that the service charges of Rs. 24,000 was paid to M/s Radiant Engineering & Mfg. Works in lieu of providing for use by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and the material available in appeal record, we find the order of the learned CIT(A) to be justified which requires no interference. 12. The next disputed point relates to adjustment of expenses of Bombay office amounting to Rs. 3,15,329. According to the AO various expenses attributable to other sister concerns were adjusted with the expenses of Bombay office of the assessee firm in order to reduce its profit. He also recorded that Bombay office was so small that expenses to the tune of Rs. 3,15,329 could not be commensurate with the smallness of the office and so in that view of the matter, the AO disallowed the business expenses of Bombay office to the tune of Rs. 3,15,329. The learned CIT(A), however, deleted the same. Before him i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpenses incurred by Bombay office for the business of the assessee firm could be fully verifiable with necessary supporting orders, bills, etc. It was also said that such expenses were allowed earlier also right from the inception of the firm and in fact in the immediate past assessment year administrative expenses to the tune of Rs. 4.5 lakhs incurred in the Bombay office was fully allowed. The learned CIT(A) considering those aspects allowed the claim of the assessee. 13. We have heard the rival submissions and have gone through the appeal records besides the P&L account of earlier years as compiled at pages 1 to 9 and also the letters dt. 11th May, 1989 compiled at pages 25 and 26 of the paper book. The learned CIT(A) while allowing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
