TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (2) TMI 95
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the trading addition of Rs.3,83,761/- without appreciating the fact that addition was made without pointing out any deficiency in the audited statement of profit and loss account, balance sheet and without allowing adequate opportunity to the appellant to substantiate the trading results shown in the audited accounts. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the disallowance of 15% of Rs.1,52,172/- out of conveyance, traveling, rent and telephone expenses totaling to Rs.12,14,481/- claimed in the profit and loss account. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in treating 30% of the sundry creditors i.e. Rs.5,89,84,383/- as non-genuine without giving any valid reasons. 4.1 That the above addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) is illegal as no adequate opportunity was allowed to the appellant to prove genuineness of these sundry creditors. 5.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s.7,13,004/- filed on 31.3.2006 by the assessee, manufacturing scanners &plotters , was selected for scrutiny with the service of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) issued on 26th October, 2006. Though on the request of the assessee adjournment was granted for 15.11.2006, the assessee did not respond on the adjourned date of hearing nor to subsequent notices dated 17.01.2007, 27.06.2007, 29.10.2007 and 21.11.2007 issued u/s 142(1) of the Act . Since the assessee did not comply with the terms of the notices issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act nor produced the relevant books and vouchers, the Assessing Officer[AO in short] proceeded to complete the best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the Act on the basis of material on record. 2.1 On perusal of details enclosed with the return, the AO noticed that the assessee raised loans from the directors for an amount of Rs.7,44,674/- and from other companies -Rs.33,79,947/-. Since the assessee did not establish identity or creditworthiness of the aforesaid creditors nor genuineness of the transactions, the AO added the amount of Rs.41,24,621/- u/s 68 of the Act. 2.2 The AO further notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... one copy of the same is being forwarded to you as per Rule 46A. Kindly peruse the above details/evidences carefully and send your comments latest by 8th November, 2010. You are permitted to conduct enquiries for this purpose." 4. Since the AO did not submit any remand report despite several reminders, the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal in the following terms:- "8. After having carefully considered all relevant facts and circumstances of the case, my conclusions/observations are as under:- 1. Regarding ground of appeal No.1, the appellant has not made any further submission or produced any details or evidences. It is clearly mentioned in the assessment order that notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 26.10.2006. This is very much within one year of filing of return, therefore, 143(2) notice is held to be valid. 2. Regarding grounds of appeal No.2, 3 & 4, in view of circumstances along with affidavit explaining the reason for non compliance of affidavit of non resident director of the assessee's company,I am of the view that the assessee deserves another opportunity. 3. The items of the additions are adjudicated as under: a) As loan confirmation of Sh. L.S. Tuli, of Wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erved that the assessee deserved another opportunity. Despite sufficient opportunity given by the ld. CIT(A), the AO did not submit any remand report .Moreover, there is nothing to suggest as to why relevant books of accounts and vouchers were not produced even before the ld. CIT(A) nor any reasons have been adduced before us for not doing so. The ld. AR now contended before us that sufficient opportunity was not allowed by the ld. CIT(A). Even otherwise, the ld.CIT(A) did not analyse the facts of the case or issues before him in the proper perspective in the light of submissions made by the assessee before him . A mere glance at the impugned order reveals that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is crypt ic and grossly violat ive of one of the facets of the rules of natural just ice, namely, that every judicial/quasi- judicial body/authority must pass reasoned order, which should ref lect appl icat ion of mind by the concerned authority to the issues/points raised before it . The applicat ion of mind to the mater ial facts and the arguments should manifest itself in the order . Sect ion 250(6) of the Act mandates that the order of the CIT(A) whi le disposing of the appeal shal l be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... holding company and its nominees were the purchaser of the products manufactured by assessee company @3,000/- per piece as decided in the year 2001. According to the AO this price was suppressed. The AO further observed that as per account provided by the assessee from the A.Y. 1996-97, opening balance had been shown at Rs.3,75,05,347/- while accumulated funding had been shown at Rs.8,83,23,825/- in F.Y. 2003-04 by making amounts credited in the accounts of M/s Widecom Group Inc. under the head 'payment received/other transaction' and no payment has been made to M/s Widecom Group Inc. during the years 1996-97 to 2003-04. During the financial year 2004-05, the assessee made sales to M/s 'Widecom Group Inc. and received `Rs. 1 crore on 1.4.2005 under the narration of 'share application money transfer from share application money to Widecom Group Inc., which the assessee had mentioned to have received in 1999-2000 . In the light of these facts and circumstances, the AO was of the opinion that that the assessee obtained in cash ,the amounts in respect of such loss or expenditure or some benefit in respect of such trading liability by way of remission. To a query by the AO, seeking to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat `Rs. 1 crore has been transferred from share application money account to general account. Even AO admits that this amount had been received in 1999-2000. Such transaction cannot be catognised as "cessation of liability". Otherwise also, section 41 is not applicable because this amount had never been debited to P&L account. Thus, addition of `Rs. 1 crore is untenable in law as well as on merits, addition of `Rs. 1 crore is deleted." 9. The Revenue is now in appeal before us against the aforesaid findings of learned CIT(A). The ld. DR merely supported the order of the AO. To a query by the bench, the learned DR could not pin point any document which was admitted by the learned CIT(A) by way of additional evidence nor adduced any reasons as to why the AO did not submit remand report on the written submissions filed by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) despite several reminders, as mentioned in para 5 of the impugned order. On the other hand, the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee supported the findings in the impugned order. 10. We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case.As is apparent from the findings of the ld. CIT(A), the liability towar....