TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 369
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of survey. (b) non-granting of set off of brought forward loss and depreciation. 3. The assessee was earlier running a garment manufacturing unit under the name and style M/s. MSR Clothing Company. It was discontinued in 2006. After that, the assessee was in employment for some time. Subsequently, the assessee started a SPA and beauty parlour by name M/s. Energie Inc in October, 2009. 4. The revenue carried out survey operations u/s. 133A of the Act in M/s. Energie Inc on 27-09-2010. A statement under oath was taken during the course of survey. In the statement, the assessee admitted that she did not maintain books of accounts. She also submitted that she has maintained receipt books, but not recorded all the transactions. F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee made various submissions and hence the Ld CIT(A) called for a remand report. The assessee also replied to the remand report. With regard to claim of set off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation, the Ld CIT(A) upheld the view taken by AO. With regard to the letter dated 11.10.2010 claimed to have been filed before the AO, the Ld CIT(A) noticed that the same is unsigned and further there is no proof of furnishing the same to the ITO. Accordingly he refused to take cognizance of the same. With regard to the business income, the Ld CIT(A) substituted the business income of Rs. 26,69,449/- declared by the assessee with the amount of Rs. 5.00 lakhs and confirmed the addition of Rs. 60.00 lakhs relating to additional income s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is sufficient to claim set off. Accordingly, the Ld A.R. submitted that the tax authorities are not justified in rejecting the claim. 9. The Ld D.R., on the contrary, submitted that the assessee has not proved that the letter dated 11.10.2010 was filed before the AO. Hence the Ld CIT(A) has rejected the same by making following observations:- "...However, the appellant has relied on the letter supposedly filed before the AO on 11.10.2010. However, there is no mention of the said letter in assessment order and other connected proceedings and there is no other authentic evidence to show case as to that the said letter was indeed filed before the AO during the course of survey proceedings. The copy of the letter produced now is als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 11.10.2010 claimed to have been filed before the AO, it appears that the assessee was under the impression that the amount of Rs. 60.00 lakhs represented her income for the FY 2010-11 relevant to AY 2011-12. However, the tax authorities have taken the view that the same represented additional income. We have earlier noticed that the Ld CIT(A) has doubted the claim of filing of letter itself and accordingly rejected the said letter for the reasons discussed in his order. We notice that the assessee has not specifically retracted from the surrender of Rs. 60.00 lakhs made by her during the course of survey operation. Instead, she has only estimated her income for the financial year 1.4.2010 to 31.03.2011 (which estimate has been made on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itional income of Rs. 60.00 lakhs. Further, the Ld CIT(A) has also made various observations without examining books of accounts. 15. In our considered view, the examination of books of accounts of the assessee would help to decide the question as to whether the addition of Rs. 60.00 lakhs (to the extent sustained by Ld CIT(A)) is still warranted or not. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of AO for examining the issue afresh duly examining the books of accounts. 16. With regard to the claim of set off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation, it is the submission of the assessee that she has furnished copies of returns of income filed by her for earlier y....