TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 356
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s also in law in confirming addition of Rs. 3,80,00,000/- being unsecured loans received from the following concerns. The addition may kindly be deleted: Sr. No. Name of the Creditors Amount (Rs.) 01 M/s Baba Kishore Enterprises 85,00,000 02 M/s G.R.S. & Co. 1,00,00,000 03 M/s Mahadev Enterprises 1,45,00,000 04 M/s Pradipkumar Vikaskumar 50,00,000 Total (Rs. ) 3,80,00,000 iii. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in confirming addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- being unsecured loan received from Shri Raj Pal. The addition may kindly be deleted. iv. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in retaining disallowance of Rs. 9,94,380/- being 20% of Rs. 49,71,904/- made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The disallowance may kindly be deleted. v. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in retaining addition of Rs. 92,01,500/- out of total addition of Rs. 1,12,01,500/- made u/s 69 of the Act being alleged investment made in construction of factory building. The addition may kindly be deleted. vi. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in confirming addition of Rs. 4,21,40,138/- ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts and circumstanced of the case, the extension granted by the AO in carrying out the audit under Section 142(2A) is against the statutory provision of the Act, as applicable in the relevant assessment year whereby no such extension can be given unless the appellant makes a request for the same. 12. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by ld. AO is bad & liable to be quashed, being barred by limitation." 4. Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the additional grounds raised are purely legal in nature, does not require any verification of facts and therefore he prayed that the additional grounds of appeal may be admitted. 5. Ld. Sr. DR has no objection for admission of additional grounds of appeal. 6. We find from the additional grounds of appeal that they are purely legal grounds and does not require any verification of investigation into the facts. Having regard to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of NTPC Ltd. Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC), we admit the additional grounds of appeal for adjudication. Hence, we proceed to adjudicate upon the additional ground of appeal, since it goes to the very validity of the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Assessing Officer extended the time for submission of the special audit report suo motu. At the relevant point of time, the Assessing Officer did not have the power of suo motu extension of submission of the audit report under the provisions of Section 142(2A) of the Act. Such power was granted by the statute to the Assessing Officer only from the assessment year 2008-09. This provision was made clear by the CBDT Circular No. 7, issued on 27th March, 2009. The similar issue had come up before a coordinate bench of this Tribunal, in the case of M/s Bishan Saroop Ram Kishan Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, in ITA No. 3413/Del/2008 (A.Y. 1999-2000) along with other appeals and the Tribunal vide order dated 18th September, 2009, held as under: 5.2 Further, a perusal of the proviso to Section 142(2C) shows that the AO did have the powers to extend the period by further period or periods as he thinks fit subject to the maximum limitation of a period of 180 days from the date on which the direction u/s 142(2A) was received by the assessee. On the facts of the present case, it is noticed that the assessee has not made any application for the extension of the period of special audit. There....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ircular dated 27th March, 2009 while the Assessing Officer shall continue to have the power to grant extension on an application made in this behalf by the Assessee, he could also grant extension of his own when there are good and sufficient reasons for such extension. Thus, it is noticed that sub section (2C) before the amendment did not empower the Assessing Officer to extend the time for submissions of special audit report under sub Section (2A). Further, the power of extension of time for submission of special audit report is also subject to limitation of a period of 180 days from the date on which the directions under section 142(2A) of the Act for the audit was received by the Assessee. It is an admitted fact that in the present case, the assessee had not made any application for extension of period of audit report. Therefore, the extension which was granted by the Assessing Officer on the request of the Auditor could be taken to be a suo motu action of the Assessing Officer which power, as noted above, was not available with the Assessing Officer prior to the amendment with effect from 1 st April, 2008. Not only this, said power of extension was also further controlled in th....