TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 41
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. At the first instance, we will deal with the appeal in ITA No. 5347/Del/2015 in the case of Hydric Farms Inputs Ltd., New Delhi Vs Pr. CIT(C), Kanpur. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: "1. BECAUSE the "Pr. CIT" has erred in law and on facts in observing that the regular assessment order dated 15.10.2014 had been passed by the Assessing Officer without examining/making enquiries on various issues [as specified in the notice under section 263(1) dated 23.0.2015] and on that ground in holding the said assessment order to be erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of revenue so as to assume jurisdiction to set aside the same. 2. BECAUSE the assessment order dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said or held to be unusual. and accordingly the revision of the assessment order dated 15.10.2014 is based on wrongful assumption of jurisdiction which is not tenable either on facts or in law. 4. BECAUSE in any case in the grounds referred to and relied upon by the "Pr. CIT", for revision of regular assessment order dated 15.10.2014 are wholly vague, indefinite, remote and farfetched and wholly irrelevant, so much so that even the case laws referred to in the impugned order are not relevant on the facts of the instant case, with the result that the order dated 16.06.2015 is wholly vitiated. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID 5. BECAUSE the order dated 16.06.2015 passed by the "Pr. CIT" under section 263 of the Act is wholly i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.09.2012 declaring an income of Rs. 62,12,825/-. The AO, however, completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) at an income of Rs. 64,09,844/- vide order dated 15.10.2014 by making the addition of Rs. 1,97,019/- on account of telephone expenses. Thereafter, the Pr. CIT exercised his powers u/s 263 of the Act and observed that the assessment order dated 15.10.2014 had been passed by the AO without examination and that the order was found to be erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the following reasons: "1. The case was selected for scrutiny on CASS with the reasons of having large agricultural income, large....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eceipt(in Rs.) Net profit (in Rs.) Net profit rate Agriculture related (claimed exernpt) 3,36,75,250/- 2,85,09,239/- 84.66% Non agriculture related 37,05,25, 289/- 64,55,921/- 1.74% Total 40,42,00,539/- 3,49,65,160/- 8.65% This analysis clearly indicates that there is abnormal profit declared in respect of exempt income and very low profit declared in respect of taxable income. As per section 14A(2) of the IT Act, 1961 " The Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of total income under this Act in accordance with such method as may be prescribed. If the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the correctness of claim of the assessee in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Khushali Kendra across UP, he is also engaged in cultivation and selling of sapling/seedling of various varieties grown in the land owned by the company as well as land taken on lease with owners at various locations. Now as per balance sheet, land owned by the assessee company is only worth Rs. 10,73,440/-. Earning income of Rs. 2.85 crore from land valued at Rs. 10.73 lakhs is not justified from any stretch of imagination. In P&L account cultivation expenses of Rs. 51,66,011/- has been debited and claimed as only expenses pertaining to agricultural income. This submission of the assessee that sapling are also shown on leased land is not apparently correct, as no such rent expenses with respect of lease rent have been claimed. The A.O. has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....through medical treatment. In support of the above contention, he furnished the copy of letter dated 06.04.2015 addressed to the Pr. CIT(C), Kanpur. It was further submitted that the assessee was facing the hardship, for that reason time was sought but the ld. Pr. CIT held that the assessment order passed by the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue without giving a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, even when a sufficient time was available with the ld. Pr. CIT to decide the case because it was not going to be barred by limitation. It was reiterated that the assessee could not collect the relevant informations within a short span of time and the authorized representative of the assessee was not availabl....