TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 177
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7, the assessee has questioned first appellate order whereby Ld. CIT (A) has sustained the disallowance of Rs. 7,83,005/- u/s 14A of the Act and disallowance of expenditure to the extent to 2.08% of the total expenditure. 2. The Revenue on the other hand has impugned the first appellate order whereby the Ld. CIT (A) has deleted the addition of Rs. 10,69,882/- out of disallowance of Rs. 18,52,887/- in assessment year 2006-07 and Rs. 10,69,882/- out of disallowance of Rs. 29,39,302/- in assessment year 2007- 08 under the provisions of Rule 8D of I T Rules, 1962 (Ground no.2) and in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on WDV of computer software expenditure(ground no.3). 3. Ground no.1 is general in nature. Since the issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the original assessment order u/s 143(3) was framed after thorough scrutiny including the issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act before the date of search. The Ld. AR referred to the original proceedings completed u/s 143(3) of the Act made available at page no.55 of the paper book. He submitted that the Assessing Officer issued questionnaire and in response thereof, the assessee had filed explanation on disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A vide letter dated 29.04.2008, a copy has been made available at page no.39 of the paper book. He pointed out that a further clarification was filed vide letter dated 29.04.2008, placed at page no.42 of the paper book, wherein the details of exempt income being dividend on shares were filed. He submitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2013. iii) CIT vs. Lachman Dass Bhatia reported in 77 DTR 17 (Del) Dt. 07.08.2012. iv) Gurinder Singh Bawa vs. DCIT reported in ITA No.4214/Del/2011 dated 28.06.2013. v) MGF Automobiles Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in ITA No.4214/Del/2011 dated 28.06.2013. vi) ACIT vs. Pratibha Industries Ltd. reported in 141 ITD 151 dated 19.12.2012. vii) ACIT vs. PACL India Ltd. ITA no. 2637/Del/2010 dated 20.06.2013 viii) SSP Aviation Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 346 ITR 177 (Del) dated 29.03.2012. 8. The Ld. CIT, Departmental Representative on the other hand, tried to justify the orders of the authorities below on the issue of validity of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; i) Gopal Lal Badruka vs. DCIT (2012) 346 ITR 106 (AP) ii) Anil Bhatia: 352 ITR 493(Del) & Ors. 9. Having gone through the orders of the authorities below, material available on record as well as the decisions relied upon, we find that in the assessment order there is no any reference of incriminating material found during the course of search on the issue of disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A or other disallowances have been made in the assessment order framed u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act. An identical issue on the validity of notice issued u/s 153A and assessment framed there under in absence of any incriminating material during the course of search, was referred to for the adjudication by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act and framing assessment there under in furtherance thereof. 11. The decision relied upon by the Ld. CIT, Departmental Representative having distinguishable facts are not helpful to the Revenue. In the case of Gopal Lal Bhadruka vs. DCIT (Supra) during the course search and seizure operations it came to light that Mr. Gopal had obtained a general power of attorney to develop the Sikand property dealing to two persons and it was revealed that the sale consideration as per the sale deed did not tally with the actual payments made by the purchasers. 12. Like wise in the case of Anil Bhatia (Supra) before the Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court did not agree with the finding of the Tribunal that the ....