For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

1Rs. (-) 4,94,001 made u/s 69C relating to negative balance of Reserve & Surplus as per the Audited Balance Sheet Since the afore-said negative balance of reserve and surplus, representing loss for the year, stood fully accounted for in the books of account ,source thereof is fully verifiedtherefore the same is liable to be deleted. 2.Rs. 12,75,00,000 made u/s 68 relating to 'Short term Borrowings' as appearing in the Audited Balance Sheet: Assessee has furnished on records bona-fide, legitimate and verifiable explanation about the nature and source of the said borrowings duly supported with cogent documentary evidences and therefore it is wrong to suggest at the part of ld. CIT(A) that the explanation of the assessee is allegedly not satisfactory and the said purported premise of Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the documentary evidences on records, which proves that the assessee has been successfully able to discharge its onus as per law and has shifted the onus to revenue to prove contrary if any. The ld. CIT(A) did not have any findings to the contrary and thus the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant to invoke the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus the impugned enhancement made by ld CIT(A) is arbitrary and baseless and deserve to be deleted. 3Rs. 20.49,08,002/- u/s. 69 of the Act relating to work in progress as appearing under current assets in the audited balance sheet :- section 69 clearly stipulates that the provisions thereof are applicable only in case of investments which are not recorded in books of account being the transactions outside the books of account. As also admitted by the ld. CIT(A), who himself picked this figure from the Balance Sheet itself and therefore by no stretch of imagination, the said balance of work-in-progress' can be made any basis of any addition/enhancement u/s 69.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sec. 251 of Income Tax Act, 1961— Assessment —Order passed by CIT(A) not sustainable as CIT(A) should have issued a fresh notice u/s. 251(2) to assessee for substantiating its claim in order to prove the documentary evidences and to answer the query raised by CIT(A) for the enhancement notice.

Facts: In compliance of the Tribunal’s order passed by the ITAT, CIT(A) passed the impugned order dated 29.10.2018 by stating that income of the assessee was earlier determined by this office at Rs. 33,35,52,203/- in accordance with the provisions of section 251(1)(a) and disposed off the appeal of the assessee by passing the impugned order dated 29.10.2018. Now the assessee is aggrieved against the impugned order dated 29.10.2018 passed by CIT(A) and filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.

Held, that impugned order has been passed by the CIT(A) without applying his mind and without complying the directions of Tribunal given vide its order dated 31.5.2018. CIT(A) should have issued a fresh notice u/s. 251(2) to the assessee for substantiating its claim in order to prove the documentary evidences and to answer the query raised by CIT(A) for the enhancement notice, but the same has not been done by CIT(A), which is contrary to law and facts on the file and hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed. - GREEN VALLEY INFRACITY PVT. LTD. V/s ITO - [2020] 80 ITR (TRIB) 388 (ITAT-DELHI)