2020 (3) TMI 282

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....being disposed-off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No.1001/Ahd/2018, AY 2006-07 2. This appeal assails the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Vadodara, [in short referred to as 'CIT(A)'], Appeal No. CIT(A)/Vadodara-5/10822/17-18 dated 26/03/2018 on following grounds:- 1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts directing AO to assessee total income at returned income of Rs. 11,35,605/- despite noting that as oper the directions of Hon'ble ITAT was bound to assess income at Rs. 1,87,524/- only. 2. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have directed AO to assess income of Rs. 5,093/- after reducing amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- as per directions given in Hon'ble ITAT order. 3. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the assessee reflected profit of Rs. 9.34 Lacs which was offered to tax after statutory adjustments. 3.2 An assessment was framed u/s 143(3) on 26/12/2008 determining the income at Rs. 15.93 Lacs. During assessment proceedings, assessee's books of accounts were rejected u/s 145(3) and profit was estimated @3% of total turnover which yielded estimated profit of Rs. 5.79 Lacs which was held to be over and above declared income of Rs. 20 Lacs. The same was not only confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) vide appellate order dated 21/10/2010 but Ld.CIT(A) enhanced the income by Rs. 11.33 Lacs. The enhancement comprised-off of two components viz. (i) Other income of Rs. 5.94 Lacs; (ii) business income of Rs. 5.79 Lacs. These items, in the opinion of Ld. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntime, the quantum order dated 26/12/2008 passed by Ld.AO was subjected to revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by Ld. CIT-1, Baroda vide order dated 30/03/2011 to restrict the partners' remuneration to Rs. 0.50 Lacs. The order giving effect was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 on 15/04/2011. The order passed by Ld.AO on 20/12/2010 was modified as per the directions given u/s 263 and the income was redetermined at Rs. 31.78 Lacs. 3.8 Keeping in view assessee's rectification application u/s 154 dated 17/01/2011 and another rectification application dated 4/10/2013, the order dated 15/04/2011 was rectified by Ld.AO on 15/11/2013 revising the income to Rs. 25.99 Lacs. In other words, the adjustment of Rs. 5.79 Lacs was deleted. 3.9 The assessee c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... rejected by Ld.AO vide order dated 18/05/2016. Upon further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A), at para 4.1 of the impugned order, agreed that the correct income as per Tribunal order should have been computed at Rs. 1.87 Lacs. But he observed that the assessed income would be reduced below returned income of Rs. 11.35 Lacs and therefore, he chose to assess the same at Rs. 11.35 Lacs in view of the fact that the assessee furnished no objection against the same. Aggrieved, the assessee is under further appeal before us. 4. Upon careful consideration of factual matrix as enumerated hereinabove, we find that coordinate bench had already adjudicated the matter of quantum additions vide order dated 18/09/2015 and the same was to be followed in spirit. A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... add other income of Rs. 8.91 Lacs to the income of the assessee. The appellate order modified the income to Rs. 32,11,694/-. The same was to be modified as per decision of Tribunal dated 18/09/2015. However, Ld. AO, making similar mistake, erroneously provided relief of Rs. 8.91 Lacs which was nothing but other income. The income was determined at Rs. 23.19 Lacs vide order dated 25/02/2016. The rectification application filed by the assessee was rejected vide order dated 18/05/2016. The Ld.CIT(A), vide appellate order dated 28/12/2017, directed Ld.AO to provide relief of Rs. 25 Lacs as per the directions of the Tribunal. However, regarding deduction of Rs. 5 Lacs representing interest on capital, it was observed that assessee did not claim....