TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 818
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment Year 2010-11), wherein, first ground raised by the assessee pertains to confirming the addition of Rs. 7,98,205/- as undisclosed sales on account of difference in closing stock of previous year and opening stock of current year. During hearing, the crux of arguments, advanced by ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Harish Bhatt, is that the Ld. First Appellate Authority did not appreciate the fact that the stock items were excisable and the same were tallying with the excise record, whereas, the mistake was committed while giving the stock data as per the Tally Software, which was not updated for stock. It was pointed out that this mistake was even confirmed by the Assessing Officer in his remand report and agreed that the correct stoc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ck as on 01/04/2009. As per the Revenue, the assessee disclosed closing stock of cocoa powder, GP-100 as 400 kg. valued at Rs. 1,97,640/- as on 31/03/2009 and in the opening stock, this quantity was absent. The difference of 125 kg valued at the rate of 81.64 per kg amounting to Rs. 10,205 was treated as undisclosed purchase out of books and thus consequent addition of Rs. 9,98,205/- on account of discrepancies was made. Before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the assessee furnished certain fresh evidences, which were remanded back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer. During remand proceedings, the assessee vide letter dated 23/12/2014, submitted the details like copy of ledger of cocoa powder GP-250 and GP-100 for Financia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncerned, it was explained by the ld. counsel that the commission was paid out of commercial expediency and not to evade the tax. It was contended that Shri Harish Kothari, is in the business of manufacturing of bulk chocolates and the commission was paid for procuring business to the assessee. The commission was claimed to be made through account payee cheque, subjected to TDS and the same was disclosed in the return of income. On the other hand, the ld. DR, defended the addition. 3.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The addition was made of Rs. 5,85,500/- as commission was paid to Mr. Harish Kothari, who is husband of the assessee. The commission was paid out of business expediency ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the addition. Reliance was also placed upon the aforesaid decision by contending that non-supply of reasons is merely a technical default by the Assessing Officer. In reply, the ld. counsel for the assessee, relied upon the decision in CIT vs Trend Electronics, order dated 16/09/2015 (2015) 379 ITR 456 (Bom.) by contending that the decision in GNK Driveshafts (India) Ltd. was duly considered along with the decision in Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 340 ITR 66. 4.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Without going into much deliberation, we find that while framing the assessment, the assessee requested the Assessing Officer to supply the reasons of reopening and vide letter dated 25/01/2013 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hese recorded reasons as laid down by the Apex Court must be furnished to the assessee when sought for so as to enable the assessee to object to the same before the Assessing Officer. Thus in the absence of reasons being furnished, when sought for would make an order passed on reassessment bad in law. The recording of reasons (which has been done in this case) and furnishing of the same has to be strictly complied with as it is a jurisdictional issue. This requirement is very salutary as it not only ensures reopening notices are not lightly issued. Besides in case the same have been issued on some misunderstanding/misconception, the assessee is given an opportunity to point out that the reasons to believe as recorded in the reasons do not w....