TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 660
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a against the declared profit of Rs. 64,243.55 and that too in the hands of the assessee. (ii) The addition of Rs. 6,50,000/- on account of payments made to M/s Tin Manufacturing Co. is totally illegal, beyond any logic and unjustified. (iii) The assessment of income in the hands of Mrs. Vandana Goyal is unjust, illegal and not based on facts of the case. A.Y. 1993-94 - ITA no. 2820/Del/03: "(i) That the learned assessing officer has mistakenly taken profit as per P&L A/c as Rs. 1,28,156/- instead of Rs. 87,310/-. Further, to assess the profits in the hands of assessee illegal, unjustified and not based on the fact, as assessee was never engaged in the business activities and it is her late husband Mr. S.P. Goyal, who was carrying on business in her name and as such she was only a benami proprietor. (ii) That the addition of Rs. 9,02,044/- as the income of assessee on account of excess interest payment claimed is not based on facts and figures. Before disallowing the same assessing officer should have considered if there was any loan from Banks or other during the year. As per the assessee's rememberance Mr. S.P. Goyal has taken huge amount of loan from Banks on the basis of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the account in Vishakhapatnam and Rs. 19,32,000/-for deposits made with the bank. The assessing officer without considering the details submitted has added the amount. The aid amounts have been received by the head office from different sources and different concerns like Sall International, TMC and deposit into the bank. (iv) That the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- is illegal and uncalled for as it represent advance given in normal circumstances and given out bank account at Vishakhapatnam. (v) That the learned assessing officer ha erred in adding of Rs. 4,42,150/- as the income of assessee on account of cash received from bank/ head office in the facts and circumstances of the case. (vi) That the learned assessing officer has erred in adding Rs. 37,560/- as income of the assessee as the amount is paid as commission through cheque, which is normal business expenditure of the firm and has nothing to do with the assessee. (vii) The assessment of income in the hands of Mrs. Vandana Goyal is unjust, illegal and not based on facts of the case. A.Y. 1995-96 - ITA no. 2822/Del/2003: "(i) That the learned assessing officer has erred in adding a sum of Rs. 17,66,000/- as the income of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of search notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 21.2.1993 for A.Ys 1992-93 to 1995-96 and assessments of the years in question were completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3). Before the AO the persistent stand of the assessee was that Shri S.P Goyal and the various companies run by his family members had been black listed by Financial Institutions, and, therefore, could not borrow monies in their names. It was under this circumstance that Shri S.P.Goyal started the business of M/s S.I in the name of the assessee as proprietor. According to the assessee she was only a puppet in the hands of Mr.S.P. Goyal and his family members and was not aware of their business module, transactions including that of SI. By the time assessments were framed, Mr. S.P. Goyal had demised. The assessee had pointed out several circumstances which go to show that Sri SP Goyal in fact started the business of M/s SI as proprietary business of the assessee only with a view to make borrowings from banks to be utilized by his other businesses. Thus the business operations of SI were Mr. Goyal's benami transactions and assessee's name was used as proprietor for their convenience. The assessee had pointed out that a c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(A) apart from giving this finding, however, also decided some issues on merit also. The ITAT upheld this finding which was not challenged by revenue but as the same grounds were challenged by revenue on merits it proceeded to decide these grounds: 3.4. Thus, in revenue's appeal, the ITAT has held that the income of the alleged proprietary concern SI attributed to the assessee Mrs. Vandana Goyal was assessable in the hands of estate of deceased S.P. Goyal and this finding has become final as revenue has not challenged it . Besides on merit also the grounds raised by the revenue were dismissed. 3.5. In the meanwhile assessee's appeals for the same assessment years came up separately before ITAT and due to non appearance, stood dismissed in limine due to non attendance treating them as unadmitted relying on ITAT Delhi Bench order in the case of Multiplan Indi Ltd. 38 ITD 320. Thereafter on assessee's misc. application no. 114 to 117/Del/2010, vide ITAT's consolidated order dated 1-7-2011 the appeals stood restored and are now posted for hearing before us. 3.6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contends that CIT(A) by consolidated order dated 29-3-2000 held that it was late Shri S.P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the year 1986-87 be set aside before the A.O. to pass fresh orders after considering the facts and after giving the appellant a- reasonable opportunity of being heard and after allowing her to present all evidences which are in her possession and allowing her to take copies of seized documents, which are required by her. The income, if any, to be considered and added should be added in the hands of late Shri S.P. Goyal who was doing the business in the name of his second wife, Ms. Vandana Goyal, showing her as Proprietor of M/s S.l. Ltd. With these remarks, I now take up the additions of each A. Y. made separately". 3.7. It is pleaded that CIT(A)'s clear finding about assessability of the income of SI in the hands of Shri S.P. Goyal and not the assessee, has not been challenged by revenue before the ITAT and thus has become final. This clearly implies that revenue has accepted the findings and order of CIT(A) on the issue of benami ownership in the hands of SPG and not the assessee. Once the finding has become final due to no challenge by revenue, there is no justification in proceeding further in this matter and assessee's appeals should be allowed. 3.8. This is amply clear ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....basis. The CIT(A) on appeal by assessee deleted the addition made by the AO by following the earlier order of CIT(A) which was subject matter of appeal in ITA 2902/Del/-00. The Revenue has raised the present ground of appeal against the order of the CIT(A). As already observed by us, this addition could not be the subject matter of scrutiny in the set aside proceedings before the CIT(A) for the reason that this addition had already been deleted by the CIT(A) and was never remanded to the AO for fresh consideration. In the circumstances the action of the CIT(A) in deleting this addition is found to be proper. Consequently ITA 2718/Del/00 is also dismissed." 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee thus vehemently contends that the finding that the income of SI alleged to be a proprietorship concern of Mrs. Vandna Goyal actually belonged to the estate of Shri S.P. Goyal has become final and conclusive on facts and law as this finding of CIT(A) was never challenged by the department before the ITAT. 4.1. Once the issue about assessability of income pertaining to the said proprietorship concern SI in the hands of late Shri S.P. Goyal stands concluded by ITAT's directions, no addition in respe....