TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 2
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal and add any other ground of appeal." 2. The assessee has filed its cross objection on the following grounds:- 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has acted against the law in not quashing the reassessment order. 2. That the CIT(A) was not correct in law in not holding the impugned assessment to be illegal specifically when he had given the finding of fact not challenged by the Revenue that there were two assessments framed in the case of the assessee and the impugned assessment framed was the later assessment. 3. That the CIT(A) was wrong by not holding that assessment in the name of M/s New Age Overseas as an individual is invalid and illegal. 4. That the CIT(A) has acted against the law by not canceling the impugned assessment specially when he had held that the assessment has been made in the name of New Age Overseas which is not a human being. M/s New Age Overseas cannot be held to be an individual. The Revenue has not challenged these findings. 5. That the CIT(A) was not correct in not cancelling the assessment when the proceedings initiated u/s 147 are invalid and illegal as the reasons recorded are und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee. 5. In appeal before the First Appellate Authority the assessee placed the following facts on record:- 4. "Facts of the case The appellant Mr. Daljit Singh is an individual and he is assessed to income tax from last more than 15 years at PAN - ALVPSI043H, Ward 19(2) New Delhi from his residential address of B-1/17, phase - II, Ashok Vihar, Delhi - 110052. The appellant has filed his income tax returns in ward 19(2) at above PAN till assessment year 2006-07. However due to shifting of residence at B-7, Green Park Extension, New Delhi, the appellant has filed his income tax returns of assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 in ward 24(1) New Delhi by mentioning his existing PAN only. The appellant was the proprietor of M/s New Age Overseas 130/131- D, Kamla Nagar, Delhi - 110007. With effect from 07.07.2004, the address of the firm was changed to 96-D Kamla Nagar, Delhi-l10007. This concern was closed on 31.03.2007. The Sales Tax number was also surrendered w.e.f 31.03.2007. The correct details of the proprietor of the firm, new address of the firm and PAN of the proprietor were available with the banker of the firm M/s Vijaya Bank, Kamla Nagar, Delhi -110007 where the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e same assessee since M/s New Overseas is the proprietorship concern of Mr. Daljit Singh who in his individual capacity as proprietor of M/s New Age Overseas had voluntarily returned his income for the year under consideration namely 2001-02 assessment year on 05.07.2001as would be evident from acknowledgement no.0253 with Ward 19(2). It was submitted that no notice u/s 143(2) in respect of the said return had been received till date. Accordingly the said return it was submitted is deemed to be assessed. Relying upon the decision of CIT vs Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. 170 ITR 449 (All.), it was submitted that under the provisions of the income Tax Act only one assessment order is contemplated for a given year. Accordingly it was submitted that the second assessment order passed by the AO is a nullity as without re-opening the first assessment another order cannot be passed. Referring to the reasons recorded it was submitted that no date has been mentioned therein and the fact remains that action is contemplated in the name of firm which was not in existence on the said date and affixed at the address where it was not in existence. Apart from various other submissions made on merits it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere he obtained the statement of the appellant's bank account. I even did not find any evidence showing that the notice has been sent to the appellant through registered post in accordance with rule 19A order of CPC along with the affixture of the notice. Thus there had been two assessments one in the name of Mr. Daljit Singh proprietor of M/s New Age Overseas by ITO ward19(2) New Delhi and the other in the mane of M/s New Age Overseas by the ITO ward 20(1) New Delhi. For the assessment year 2001-02 there are two assessments resting with the deptt. in the case of appellant. 8.2. Ground No.9 relates to the addition of Rs. 108000/-. The assessing officer made this addition merely on the basis of information of the investigation wing as mentioned in the assessment order. I have noted that the appellant has received the said amount on the sale of furniture in which the appellant was dealing. The amount was credited in his bank account on 25.10.2000. The appellant has already included the said sum in the total sale disclosed in his audited accounts filed with income tax return with ITO ward 19(2) New Delhi as on 05.07.2001. The total sales shown by the assessee was Rs. 1,30,41,354/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 19(2) New Delhi as on 05.07.2001 along with the audited accounts in which the impugn bank account was also shown in the balance sheet. The assessing officer merely presumed all the credits in the bank to be sales of the appellant and estimated the profit @ 5% at the back of the appellant. The appellant has duly submitted the detail of complete bank account along with reconciliation of the sales figure shown in the audited amounts and estimated by the assessing officer which has been examined by me. The AO was at liberty to examine the credits in bank account for alleged sales during the remand report, however, no cogent findings have been given by the AO. The addition is merely based on suspicion. This is a settled law that no addition can be made on merely suspicion however strong it may be. Accordingly I delete the addition of Rs. 10, 89,423/-. The other grounds of appeal are either general or consequential in nature and does not require any adjudication. 6. Aggrieved by this the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Sr. DR specifically reading para 8.4 which is reproduced above was unable to address as to how without a challenge to these findings the department can....