News Update

India, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEAThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCBDT substitutes Form in ITR-5EV Revolution: Lessons for India to learn from US and China!London court green-signals auction of luxury apartment of fugitive Nirav ModiGovt consults RBI; finalises borrowing plan for first half of FY 2024-25Gadkari says Farmers’ protest is politically-motivatedVP calls upon women entrepreneurs to be 'Vocal for Local'America offers USD 10 mn bounty for information on ‘Blackcat’ hackers after UnitedHealth gets hitI-T- The order of the ITSC can only be reopened in cases of fraud or misrepresentation: HC8 persons including Hezbollah militants killed in Israeli strike on LebanonI-T - Income so surrendered on account of investment in excess stock during course of survey cannot be brought to tax under deeming provisions of section 69B: ITATMacron pillories EU-South Africa trade deal; calls it ‘really bad’ in BrazilI-T-Power of revision need not be exercised where facts do not reveal any lack of enquiry by AO into relevant issue & when twin requirements of order being erroneous as well as prejudicial to Revenue's interests, are not satisfied: ITATThailand’s Lower House okays Bill to legitimise same-sex marriageI-T -Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed where an assessee claims deduction u/s 80P while being ineligible therefor, but being under the bona fide impression of being eligible for such benefit : ITATYellen warns China against clean energy dumpingCus - Enhancement of declared value of imported goods is not tenable, where Department adduces no material to show how the enhanced value was computed & where no cogent rationale is made out for rejecting declared value: CESTATMilky Way’s central black hole - Twisted magnetic field observedCus - Assessee has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that goods in question imported under air way bills/bills of entry were in fact filed by him and hence the only natural corollary available to Revenue is confiscation of same: CESTATSmall investors help Trump Media’s valuation skyrocket to USD 13 billionST - When the facts are in the knowledge of department subsequent SCN alleging suppression cannot be issued and entire demand was found beyond normal period of limitation: CESTATFM Nirmala Sitharaman declines to contest LS elections as she has no fundsST - Tripura State Rifles not required to pay Service Tax under heading of Security Services, as it is is not engaged in business of providing security services: CESTATJustice Ritu Raj Awasthi joins as Judicial member of LokpalCX - Clandestine removal alleged based on consumption of raw inputs and heightened electricity usage - Tax demands based on third party statements but without permitting cross examination of deponents; case remanded to allow this exercise: CESTAT
 
I-T - Decision of CIT(A) based on evidences produced by assessee, which was also available with AO , cannot be challenged further: ITAT

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, APRIL 24, 2018: THE ISSUE BEFORE THE BENCH IS - Whether decision of the CIT(A) based on the evidences produced by the assessee, on which the AO fails to take a call, can be challenged further. NO IS THE ANSWER.

Facts of the case:

The assessee company carried on the business of manufacturing of power cables, electrical wires, mining cables. It filed the rerun for the AY 2010-11. During the scrutiny proceedings for the AY, the AO observed that the assessee had claimed that the production under Unit II was commenced any time earlier to 30/09/2009. However, the AO noticed that in spite of repeated opportunities, the assessee failed to produce requisite documents supporting its claim and hence, the AO stated that 50% of the depreciation claimed in respect of Unit II was liable to be disallowed. Accordingly, the AO completed the assessment by making an additions to the assessee's total income. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of 50% of depreciation made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that,

++ no doubt CIT(A) stated in his order that on a careful consideration of the evidence furnished before him in the shape of copies of the sales invoices for the period between 20/04/2009 to 30/09/2009 along with the copies of the transporter's receipts, nevertheless it is further observed by him that all these documents were available with the AO also. By no stretch of imagination it could be said that the CIT(A) while allowing the additional evidence, made a wrong statement that all these documents were available with the AO also. Nowhere in the order it is stated that the assessee came forward with any additional evidence at the appellate stage;

++ the assessee simply produced the copies of the documents which are already available with the AO, on considering which, while observing that basing on these documents which were available with the AO, the CIT(A) reached their conclusion that Unit-II commenced its operations since 24/08/2009. In the facts and circumstances of the case, on a plain reading of the disputed order we find that this appeal of the Revenue is misconceived one and does not hold any merits. Recording the same, we dismiss the grounds of appeal. In view of dismissal of the Revenue's appeal, cross objection becomes infructuous and is accordingly dismissed.

(See 2018-TIOL-597-ITAT-DEL)

 

 


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023