AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 639
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red in ignoring the fact that all these notices were duly served on the PAN address of the assessee which was the only available known address of the assessee and still exists in PAN database and the assessee did not change its address provided at the PAN database or in the records of the NSDL. 3. That while doing so the Ld. C1T(A) has disregarded this fact that all these notices were served at the same address which was mentioned by the assessee company in its appeal before the CIT(A) and in the court case before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 4. That even while adjudicating on merits, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that interest accrued on the amount of Rs. 2,20,57,673/- was liable to be taxed as income from other sources and since the AO has made the addition on this score u/s 68 for unexplained credit, the AO had no occasion to tax the interest component. 5. That the Ld. C1T(A) has erred in mentioning in the appellate order that no remand report was received from the Assessing Officer though in pursuance of remand proceedings the Assessing Officer vide his letter dated 03.02.2015 has sought direction from the Ld. CIT(A) for proce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... response to this letter, vide letter dated 7.2.2013, assessee submitted that owing to pending of court case under CBT section of Economic Offences Wing Crime Branch, New Delhi, they are unable to submit E-Return as well as Audit Return, Balance sheet, Profit and loss account, bank statement etc. for the AY 2008- 09 and 2009-10. But assessee failed to comply with the requirements of the notices, the AO proceeded to complete the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act. Thereafter, on perusal of the TEP dated 7.3.2011, AO observed that assessee company has also refunded an amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- to Sh. Ashok Kumar Sarin by RTGS as per assessee's letter dated 4.3.2011 and assessee company has not furnished any detail. Hence, the AO treated the amount of Rs. 1,60,57,673/- (2,20,57,673 - 60,00,000) as the unexplained credit as per the provisions of section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Against the assessment order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 22.4.2015 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by quashing the reassessment proceedings. 5. In this case, Notice of hearing to the assessee was sent by the Registered AD post, in spite of the same, assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dditional evidences were sent to A.O. for remand report from this office on 07.01.2015, but A.O. did not sent remand report so far. Finally, on 10.4.2015, the AO and AR came to my office and the case was heard and discussed with them. 2. The Indian Director Sh. Raj Kumar Arora also appeared before us, and we discussed the matter thoroughly. The Delhi High Court on 05.3.2015, closed the FIR proceedings by imposing fine of Rs. 50,000/- on directors and amicably settled the matter of disputes between them. The Indian Director also paid part of money borrowed from NRI, Sh. Ashok Sarin and they incurred losses on acquisition of lands too. The A.O. agreed to these facts and hence in the absence of remand report, the case is decided on merits also. The comments of Delhi High Court on settlement of case between Raj Kumar Arora and state of NCT, Delhi and others - (Writ Petition (CRL)2027/2014) dated 05.3.2015 is produced below:- "Present FIR No. 505/2010 under Sections 406/420/120-B IPC, Police Station Shakarpur was registered on the complaint of respondent no. 2 against the petitioners and respondent no. 3. Petitioner no.l, respondent nos. 2 and 3 were have busi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... All the receipts of money are not income of the company. In this case, the receipt of money of Rs. 4,60,01,150/- as per MOU dated 01.12.2007 from NRI Sh. Ashok Sarin to start business is a capital receipt, and it comes to balance sheet. As dispute grew, they could not do anything in business, then the other director Raj Kumar Arora returned back money of Rs. 1,69,00,000/- through SBI of Patiala, and settled the case through Delhi High Court, the police case is closed now. So also the business venture of appellant company. In these facts and circumstances, the proceedings u/s 144/147 by A.O. dated 25.3.2013 is not a valid proceedings, hence I quash the proceedings u/s 144/147. The demand is reduced to NIL. These grounds of appeals 4,5,6 are allowed. Ground No.7: Is consequently and invalid now, as the assessment order is quashed. The demand raised by A.O. is i llegal, invalid and devoid of merits. Ground No.8: is general in nature The appellant's appeal is allowed." 7.1 We have perused the orders passed by the revenue authorities especially the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority reproduced above, we are of the considered view that assessee ....