TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orders of the learned CIT is against the law, the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles of equity and natural justice. 2) The learned CIT erred in setting aside the order of the assessing officer under section 143 (3) of the Act and directing the assessing officer to pass appropriate order after investigation/ enquiry. 3) The learned CIT erred in holding that the order of the assessing officer under section 143 (3) of the Act is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The CIT failed to note that the order is neither erroneous for prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore he did not jurisdiction to revise the assessment under section 263 of the Act. 4) The learned CIT erred in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned CIT erred in relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Goetze India Ltd (284 ITR 329). He failed to note that ratio the said decision does not apply to the facts of the case of the assessee. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, carrying on the business of road transport as a proprietary concern under the name and style M/s Aim Transport, and filed his returned an income of Rs. 21,70,955/- for the assessment year 2010-11 after claiming deduction u/s.54 of the Act. The assessing officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act vide his order dated 01.03.2013, determining the total income at Rs. 26,60,160/-. In completing the assessment, amongst other claims,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e AO at the time of assessment on the issue of claim of loss of Rs. 5 lakhs as business loss, which is on account of forfeited advance paid to the Volvo bus and also there is an enquiry by the AO with regard to capital gains. The assessee furnished the details to the AO vide its letter dated 18.12.2012 and also vide letter dated 26.12.2012. The assessee in his letter stated that the assessee had booked a Volvo with a specific design with Volvo India Private Ltd., on 21.12.2008 by paying Rs. 5 lakhs as token advance by cheque No.036524 dated 18.11.2008. The Volvo India manufactured the Volvo and billed the same on assessee for Volvo FM 340 x 4 Tractor. But the said Volvo was not according to assessee's requirement and specification and the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e claim of assessee in respect of loss on account of forfeited amount of Rs. 5 lakhs, only on the basis of submissions of assessee without conducting further enquiry with regard to the genuineness and nature of the loss. The AO had not gathered any information regarding the nature of loss whether capital or revenue and the evidence brought on record does not suggest the nature of loss claimed by the assessee. It is incumbent on the part of the AO to come to an independent conclusion that the loss claimed by the assessee is really a revenue loss or a capital loss. The AO absolutely closed his eyes for the reason best known to him and accepted the submissions of assessee as it is made by the assessee. Perusing the submissions of assessee, it ....