2014 (6) TMI 407

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1.4.1988 to 22.9.1998, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- "i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 26,24,280/- made on account of disallowances under section 40A(3) of the I.T.Act? ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in directing the A.O. not to charge interest under Section 158BFA(1) for late filing of return, when the learned CIT(A) already dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this ground being infructuous one?" 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated in the appeal, may be noticed. The respondentassessee is a proprietary concern. It deals ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....certain errors which had crept in the order dated 30.3.2001. The plea of the respondent for reducing the income was rejected. Not satisfied with the findings of the CIT(A), the respondent as well as the revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 8.4.2005, Anenxure A.4 allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of unexplained investment and charging of interest under Section 158BFA (1) of the Act and dismissed the appeal of the department on the ground of addition on account of disallowances under Section 40A(3) of the Act. The issue relating to addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of suppressed profits was restored back to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate upon the issue afresh in the light o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ultimately, vide letter dated 5.1.1999, the assessee requested that since the copies of the documents were not supplied, it was not possible to file true and correct return for the block period in question and as such the time may be extended. The assessee filed return for the block period on 25.2.1999. The assessee declared the undisclosed income in the sum of Rs. 31,42,090/-.The Tribunal after considering the aforesaid facts had come to the conclusion that there was no delay on the part of the assessee in filing the return. The assessee could not file the return for the block period as the department had taken time to supply the copies of the seized documents on the basis of which the assessee had filed the return for the block period on....