TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 883
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w. Hence the orders passed are contrary and bad in law, hence required to be quashed and deleted entirely. II. For that the Ld. Assessing Officer should not have passed the order invoking Sec. 147 of the IT. Act basing on the assessment completed in case of Sri Ram Prakash Senapati, brother of the Appellant. So the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer is prejudice to the farts and in law. Hence, the order passed U/s. 143(3)/147 of the IT. Act is liable to be quashed in toto. III. For that the alleged cash deposit was actually related to the business deposit of the appellant. Hence the entire deposit should not be treated as undisclosed source of income, Therefore, the orders passed, in mechanical manner without considering the facts, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thout spelling out reasons and passed a cryptic order, hence the orders are liable to be deleted in toto." 3. The brief facts of the case are that in the present case, addition of Rs. 27,14,906/- was made on account of deposit in S.B. A/c No.464010100041899 -Axis Bank, Puri in the hands of the assessee's brother, Shri Ram Prakash Senapati substantively and addition of the same amount was made in the hands of the assessee protectively. The CIT(A) in the case of Ram Prakash Senapati restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with certain directions. The CIT(A) writes in his order that how the Assessing Officer has given effect to the order dated 14.4.2015 of the CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar is not known. The assessee has not she....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudicating the issue in the light of the order passed by the Assessing Officer in the case of Ram Prakash Senapati. 8. Ld D.R. also agreed with the submission of ld A.R. of the assessee. 9. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) needs slight modification. The direction of the CIT(A) that if addition is deleted in the hands of Ram Prakash Senapati then addition in the hands of the assessee should be confirmed is not correct. In our considered view, if the addition in the hands of Ram Prakash Senapati comes to be deleted, then it has to be examined as to whether the addition can be made in the hands ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot satisfied with the submission of the assessee and levied penalty of Rs. 63,216/- u/s.271B of the Act for not furnishing the return of income within due time prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act. 13. Before the CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the submissions and relied on the following judgments: i) Calcutta Chrome Type Pvt Ltd vs ITO, 80 ITR 627. ii) Anchor Pressing Pvt Ltd vs CIT, 136 ITR 505 (All) iii) Bangalore Steel Distributors vs ITO, 49 ITD 668 (Bang) iv) CIT vs. Iqbalpur Co-operative Chrome Development Union Ltd, 23 DTR 60 (Utt) V) Rupali Dying and Printing Works, 86 Taxman 124 vi) Kartika Enterprises, 114 Taxman 46. 14. Before us, ld A.R. reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. 15. On the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....17. On appeal, the CIT(A) also confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 18. Before us, the contentions of the assessee is the same as were made before the lower authorities. 19. We find that the CBDT Circular No.03/2009 dated 21.5.2009 provides as under: ""7. Following clarifications are also issued in respect of certain issues arising from furnishing the returns in the above-mentioned forms: (i) An assessee should obtain the report of audit from an accountant under section 44AB of the Act on or before the due date of the furnishing of the return and should fill out the relevant columns of the returns forms on the basis of such report. However, the report of audit should not be attached with the return or furnished separately an....