AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions can be made by the Ld. AO following the ratio of judgment in All Cargo Logistics Limited vs. DCIT and other leading cases under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act. The Ld. AO had no jurisdiction to pass the order under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act. 2. BECAUSE the addition of Rs. 2,54,789/- on account of pre-paid portion of insurance is illegal and unjustified. The assessee has adopted the same method of accounting in all the earlier as well as subsequent assessment years and accordingly has charged the insurance paid in the year of payment. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) confirmed the addition without appreciating the full facts. The addition of Rs. 2,54,789/- is therefore, arbitrary and unwarranted. The same deserves to be deleted. 3. BECAUSE on facts and in law and ground taken and basis adopted the addition of Rs. 8,000/- on account of generator shifting charges is unjustified and illegal. The Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the addition without appreciating the facts and the same deserves to be deleted in full. 4. BECAUSE on facts and in law the addition of Rs. 4,067/- on account of negative cash balance is unjustified and illegal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epreciation on the fixed assets. 6. BECAUSE the addition of Rs. 2,55,717/- on account of pre-paid portion of insurance is illegal and unjustified. The assessee has adopted the same method of accounting in all the earlier as well as subsequent assessment years and accordingly has charged the insurance paid in the year of payment. The Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) confirmed the addition without appreciating the full facts and without affording the reasonable opportunity of being heard. The addition of Rs. 2,55,717/- is therefore, arbitrary and unwarranted. The same deserves to be deleted. 7. BECAUSE notwithstanding ground 6 the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the disallowance for Rs. 2,54,789/- in the assessment order for assessment year 2002-03. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have allowed the deduction of Rs. 2,54,789/- during the current year. 8. BECAUSE the disallowance of lease rent payable amounting to Rs. 4,17,950/- is unjustified and illegal on grounds taken and basis adopted and on facts and in law. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has failed to understand the facts relating to lease rent payable and has confirmed the additions made by Ld. AO on conjectures and surmises. Therefore,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. vs. CIT (2005) 142 TAXMAN 380 (All.) is not applicable to the present case. 6. BECAUSE on facts and in law and on grounds taken and basis adopted, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of entire interest on borrowed capital under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,62,70,118/-. The assessee inadvertently claimed deduction of part interest of Rs. 2,51,80,198/- in response to the return u/s -153A. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to further deduction of Rs. 2,10,89,920/- being difference of 4,62,70,118/- less 2,51,80,198/-. The Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT (Appeals) have failed to appreciate that as a quasi judicial authority under the Act, the Ld. AO and/or Ld. CIT (Appeals) is required to assess total income of the assessee in accordance with the provisions of Income tax Act, 1961, therefore, the claim for any expenses, if otherwise allowable under the Act, has to be considered and allowed to the assessee. 7. BECAUSE the assessee made the claim for deduction on account of interest on borrowed capital u/s 36(1)(iii) and well before the date of assessment and also furnished all information in respect thereof to the Ld. AO and requested the Ld. AO to pass s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....surance paid during the year amounting to Rs. 5,53,593/- but prepaid portion of Rs. 2,55,717/- has not been accounted for; made addition of Rs. 4,17,950/- on account of least rent payable and assessed total income at Rs. 30,79,506/-. 3.2 In AY 2004-05, AO made addition of Rs. 3,810/- on account of negative cash balance; made addition of Rs. 3,81,494/- on account of travelling expenses being personal in nature;; made addition of Rs. 96,135/- on account of disallowance u/s 69 of the Act and assessed total income at Rs. 3,35,78,919/-. 4. Assessee carried the matter by way of appeals before the ld. CIT (A) who has partly allowed the appeals for AYs 2002-03 & 2003-4 and dismissed the appeal for AY 2004-05. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeals. 5. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 & 2003-04 6. The ld. AR for the assessee challenging the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A) contended that no incriminati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed by the AOs as a fresh exercise. iii. The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place. The AO has the power to assess and reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax". iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other postsearch material or information available with th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before the due date or before the date mentioned in the notice. Admittedly, the assessee has not filed the return u/s 153A before the due date given in the notice issued u/s 153A itself and in these circumstances, return filed by the assessee is to be treated as a return filed u/s 139 (4) of the Act which is not permitted to be filed u/s 139 (5). The ld. CIT (A) has thrashed this issue in detail in para 6.2 of the impugned order which is extracted as under for ready perusal :- "6.2 I have carefully considered the assessment order passed by DCIT, central Circle Meerut as well as the remand report submitted by her, I have also carefully gone through written submission made by the AR of the appellant as well as the 'rejoinder to the remand, report. It seems that the arguments 'of the AR on this issue are self-defeating. The AR has given an argument that section 153A starts with a non-obstante clause 'notwithstanding anything contained relating to normal assessment procedure'. The AR has further argued that sections 153A, 153B and153C are intended to be a complete code for post search assessments in themselves. If this is so, the return filed in response to section 153A ....