TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 437
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly held company managed by the family members. The Chairmancum- Managing Director (CMD) of the company Shri Chandrakant P. Sanghvi and the Director of the company Shri Anil Kumar P. Sanghvi are brothers and are having serious differences in managing the affairs of company. Consequently, the accounts of the assessee company were not finalized and the compliances under provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") were not made. The assessee is engaged in the business of generation and sale of electricity, hiring of cranes and trailers. No return of income was filed by the assessee company for the impugned assessment year. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued. Despite service of notice u/s. 148 and repeated no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2,91,79,690/- in respect of Short Term Capital Gain. Against the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) both, the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee in appeal has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by raising following grounds : "Ground No: 1 The Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding assessment at 300% of income under the head 'Business Income'. He failed to follow the order passed by him in earlier year enhancing the income by 15% instead of 300% when there is no substantial change of facts of disputes between directors. Ground No: 2 The Id. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in respect of making further addition of Rs. 64,36,734/- to the assessed estimated inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... correctness and completeness of various details and evidences which were wither not filed before the AO or contested to be untrue by rival directors in contravention of Rule 46A, even without granting opportunity to the Assessing Officer? 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the above grounds." 3. Shri C.H. Naniwadekar appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee could not file return of income for the impugned assessment year as both the brothers managing the affairs of the company were having serious disputes and consequently, the affairs of the assessee company were suffering. Even the accounts of the assessee company could not be finalized. Resultantly, the Auditors could not audit the acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cting the addition in respect of income from house property to 15%. The reasoning given by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in reducing the income from house property is without any merit. 5. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. In this case we find that neither the return of income nor statutory Tax Audit Report u/s. 44AB of the Act has been filed by the assessee. The assessee has not even bothered to comply with the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer. There was absolutely non-cooperation and non-compliance of the provisions by the assessee company. Merely, tentative profit and loss account and Balance sheet for the Financial Year 2007....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....count were audited and the assessee had filed return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. However, in the present assessment year neither the return has been filed nor the books have been audited. The Tribunal in appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No. 1972/PUN/2013 (supra) has confirmed the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in restricting the addition to 15% of the income returned. The assessee in the assessment year under appeal has furnished tentative financial statements declaring Business Income of Rs. 64,36,734/-. The Revenue has made addition of Rs. 1,93,10,202/- on mere estimation. We are in agreement with the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the facts of the present case are at var....