TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 1143
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 A.Y. 2005-06) 1.1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is arbitrary, against law and facts on record. 1.2 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in not considering the fact that the assessment was reopened u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the basis of general allegation without any incriminating material against the assessee and was reopened after the expiry of the time limit prescribed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and as such the assessment order so framed is bad in law 1.3 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has not considered the fact that the Assessing officer has erred in not passing the speaking order on the objection filed by the assessee against the reason recorded for reope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition regarding bogus/inflated claim of new vehicle expense amounting to Rs. 41,69,303/-. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of travelling expenses amounting to Rs. 48,19,079/-. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the regular books of account seized during search do not form 'incriminating document' even if its entries are found false on investigation. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of personal expenses amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/-. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in relyin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that in this case a search and seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Act took place in February, 2012. The assessee's case was reopened u/s 148 on the pretext that the assessee was making false claim of discounts passed of the customers through self-made vouchers and bearer cheques. On examination of the bank statement in respect of Bank Account No. 012700210006722, PNB, New Delhi for Financial Year 2004-05 & 2005-06 belonging to PASCOS, Proprietor through Sharuk Passi, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that there are number of withdrawals in cash from this account. Summons u/s 131 of the Act was issued to the assessee to explain the nature of business and also th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons were neither the employee of the assessee nor related to the assessee. The Assessing Officer did not make any adverse inference regarding the fact that expenses are neither in the nature of personal expense nor in the nature of capital expenditure. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the additions sustained by the CIT (A) is not correct and may be quashed. 7. The Ld. DR submitted that the reasons had categorically mentioned that the assessee did not disclose the amount of income earned by way of claim of genuine discount and failed to disclose fully and truly all material fact in that respect. The Ld. DR further submitted that there is no change of opinion as the original assessment lacks proper adjudication of the material available on re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see is allowed. 9. In result, appeal being ITA No. 1105/Del/2015 filed by the assessee is allowed. 10. As regards ITA No. 4292/Del/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13, the brief facts are that the search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on PASCO Group of cases on 17/2/2012. In response to return filed u/s 153A of the Act, the detail questionnaire was issued calling for the various information and explanation by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer while passing the order disallowed the expenses of Rs. 98,12,000/- under the head rebate and discount, also disallowed Rs. 28,57,378/- under the head transportation expense, Rs. 41,69,303/- under the head new vehicle expenses, Rs. 48,19,079/- under the head travelling expenses, Rs. ....