TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1141
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning the delay in filing of appeal without considering the non compliant and highly non cocooperative conduct of the assessee during the original assessment proceedings and the reassessment proceedings after the revision order passed by the CIT u/s 264 of Act. 4. That the CIT (A) has substantially erred on facts and in law in condoning the delay in filing of appeal without considering the fact that the assessee remained non compliant to the notices issued by the Income Tax Authorities even though an affidavit was filed by the director of the assessee undertaking that no non- compliance shall be made to the notices issued by the Income Tax Authorities. 5. That the CIT (A) has substantially erred on facts and in law in condoning the delay in filing of appeal without appreciating and considering the observations of his Ld. Predecessor (specifically under para 8.4 of the order) while dismissing the appeal of the assesee against the penalty imposed under Section 271 (l)(b) of the Act. 6. That the CIT (A) has substantially erred on facts and in law in condoning the delay in filing of appeal in relying upon the judicial precedents without appreciating that the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in real estates, land trading and development. A search was conducted at the officer premises of the company on 31.01.2008. Accordingly, a notice u/s 153A was issued on 24.11.2008 and again notice u/s 142(1) alongwith questionnaire was issued on 19.10.2009. The assessee did not file return of income in response to the notices within the time allowed. On 25.11.2009, the assessee filed a letter with a print out of return for A.Y. 2006-07 and requested that return filed u/s 139 of the Act should be treated as return filed under Section 153A of the Act. The Assessing Officer on 29.12.2009 passed order u/s 153A/144 determining total income at Rs. 2,15,74,710/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessment was ex-parte originally and after the order passed under Section 264 by the CIT still the assessee did not file the documents before the Assessing Officer for the second round as well. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly made additions and the CIT(A) without calling for remand report allowed the appeal of the assessee. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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." (d) Although Section 153A 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 the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment "can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material." (e) In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in Section 153A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. (f) Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdicti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of the AO, the evidence of having incurred the said expenses was not filed. In the circumstances, the AO was correct in disallowing the same. The expenses like audit fees, printing and stationary, ROC filing fees though more or less mandatory in nature have to be shown to be paid and necessary vouchers to support the same has to be filed, which has not been done. Therefore, the same cannot be allowed merely on the ground that the same because of their inherent nature are necessary for the business. The addition made is therefore, confirmed except in respect of bank charges of Rs. 3629 which are evident from the bank account perusal." ...... "21. I have considered the facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the AO and the arguments of the AR during the assessment proceedings as well as reassessment proceedings. It is seen that the appellant had explained the query of the AO on the issue by submitting that the impugned deposits were out of the cash available with the appellant as evidenced by the cash book maintained in the regular course of business. It is also seen that the AO in his report submitted to CIT(C)-2, New Delhi in the proceedings u/s 264, had clear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... detailed analysis of the submission made by the appellant, the observation of the AO in the assessment order that no details had been filed at any stage is contrary to the facts on record. In the circumstances, the burden cast upon the appellant u/s 68 was clearly discharged by bringing on record the various facets of the transaction. It is not the case that any queries had been caused by the AO to bring on record any adverse evidence to suggest doubts over the identity, creditworthiness, genuineness of M/s Lakshya Buildtech or M/s Vatika Landbase P Lt. It is also an important fact that no evidence in the form of any incriminating document or statement had been found during the course of search operation to support the presumption that the impugned advance from M/s Lakshya Buildtech was not a genuine transaction. I had also caused the appellant to file more evidence to support the creditworthiness of M/s Lakshya Buildtech and in pursuance thereof the financial statements of M/s Lakshya Buildtech had been filed for FY 2005-06 which show that it had total share capital and unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 3,08,00,000 as on 31.03.2006 and the said company as per the record of the ROC....