×Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India
These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.
This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 06.10.2017 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 1997-98 on the following grounds:-
"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.5,23,42,500/- on account of share / equity capital without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to produce evidence.
2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.21,80,11,355/- on account of unsecured loans without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to produce evidence.
3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ClT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.9,45,25,367/- on account of sundry creditors being the investor fund collected through Sugam Scheme without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to produce evidence.
4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.ll,20,17,167/- on account of fixed assets without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to produce evidence.
5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.l,00,000/- on account of vehicle running and maintenance expenses without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to produce evidence.
6. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the 1/5th addition of RS.44,888/- out of car depreciation of Rs.2,24,440/- due to personal use by directors without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to produce evidence.
7. The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh ground(s) of appeal and/or delete or amend any of the ground(s) of appeal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the original assessment in this case was completed u/s. 143(3) (in short “Act) on 27.3.2000 on total income of Rs. 55,73,77,005/-. No appeal against this order was filed by the assessee company. Later on, the Ld. CIT(A)-II, Delhi, New Delhi while examining the possibilities of recovery of demand in this case for the AY 1997-9 and earlier years noted that the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 27.3.2000 for AY 1997-98 on total income of Rs. 55,73,77,005/- creating a demand of Rs. 39.96 crores and penalty order u/s. 271(1)9c) passed on 28.9.2000 levying penalty of Rs. 23.84 crores needs review. The assessment was, therefore, set aside by the Ld. CIT, Delhi-II, New Delhi vide her order passed u/s. 264 of the I.T. Act on 15.3.2001 in respect of assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act and penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act with the direction to AO to reframe the assessment after giving due opportunities to the assessee and after collecting full facts from crime Branch authorities as also taking note of judicial pronouncement if received by them. In order to give opportunities of being heard to the assessee a letter dated 22.1.2002 alongwith notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, were sent to the assessee company and also on various occasions and in response to the same a letter dated 7.2.2002 a letter received from Sh. Narinder Jit Singh through registered post wherein he has submitted that he has been in judicial custody in T har Jail in various cases of economic offences since 29.6.1998 and that all records pertaining to books of accounts, balance sheet, profit and loss account, bank account etc. were seized by the Crime Branch and are presently under the direct custody of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and hence he is unable to furnish any detail or evidence in support of his contention at this point of time. After perusing the same, the AO observed that out of three Directors of the Coy. the two Directors namely Sh. Inderjit Sahni and Sh. Jagdeep Singh Sahni had expired in March and August, 1998 respectively and the 3rd Director Sh. Narinder Singh Sahni is in judicial custody since June, 1998. In case Sh. Narinderjit Singh, Ex-Director of the Company is unable to attend the assessment proceedings, the company should depute an authorized representative on its behalf like Sh. Sanjeev Wadhera, CA who had attended the assessment proceedings earlier for AY 1996-97. The assessment proceedings for the year under consideration cannot be withdrawn as requested by Sh. Narinder Jit Singh ex Director of the company in his above referred letter dated 2.2.2002. AO noted that since the assessee company has failed to attend the asse sment proceedings with details / information to be filed in support of its contention, no information / detail was collected from the Crime Branch as in the absence of assessee company’s details, it is difficult to correlate information available with the Crime Branch and pass the assessment order as per accounting principles and make additions only after proper verification. Hence, AO has no alternative except to complete the assessment for the year under consideration on the same figure as completed on 27.3.2000 at Rs. 55,73,77,005/-. Therefore, assessment was made at Rs. 55,73,77,005/- wherein various additions have been made vide order dated 22/3/2002 passed u/s. 264/143(3) of the Act. Against the assessment order dated 22.3.2002, assessee appealed before the ld. CIT(A) who vide his impugned order dated 17.3.2015 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the impugned order the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.