TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1001
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Ld. CIT(A) erred in - 1. Deleting the addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- as unexplained investment in stock. 2. Deleting the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- as gross profit on sale of the unexplained investment in the domestic market. 3. Directing the AO recalculate the deduction u/s. 80HHC after giving effect to the appellate order. 4. Ignoring the submission of the AO not to accept the addition evidence of the assessee under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. 5. The appellant craves the right to add any other ground of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the department has filed an appeal before ITAT against the order of Ld. CIT(A). The ITAT vide its order ITAT No. 1209/Del/2004 dated 26.09.2008 has accepted that the matter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion but to finalize the assessment proceedings on the basis of the material available on record u/s. 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The AO observed that as the assessee / legal heir of the assessee has failed to comply with the notices u/s. 143(2) and not represent the case before the undersigned and has not objected to his proposal to decide the matter on merits u/s. 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by making following additions on the issues on which Department has filed appeal in ITAT in absence of non compliance of notices and evidences. i) Addition of Rs. 75 lacs made on account of unexplained investment in purchase of goods from M/s Liberty Hoisery. ii) Addition of Rs. 15 lacs on account of book profit 20% on sales relatable to stock of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsidered view that the goods were supplied by M/s Liberty Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee in the month of August, 1998 and not in the month of November, 1998 as claimed by the AO. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that there remains no ground for an addition of Rs. 75 lacs to the income of the assessee u/s. 69 of the Act and hence, deleted the said addition. In our considered opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any interference on our part, hence we uphold the same and accordingly the ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue stands dismissed. 8.2 With regard to ground no. 2 regarding deletion of addition of Rs. 15 lacs on account of alleged profit 220% on sale of stock of Rs. 75 lacs in do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any interference on our part, hence we uphold the same and accordingly the ground no. 2 raised by the Revenue stands dismissed. 8.3 With regard to ground no. 3 regarding directing the AO to recalculate the deduction u/s. 80HHC after giving effect to the appellate order, we find that the assessee has challenged the incorrect computation of the deduction admissible u/sw. 80HHC of the Act, which was restricted to Rs. 1.75 crores as against the original claim of the assessee at Rs. 2.48 crores. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly directed the AO to recomputed the deduction admissible u/s. 80HHC of the Act to the assessee after proper effect to this appellate order. In our considered op....