SAFARI BIKES LTD. Vs. J.C.I.T.
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Safari Bikes Ltd.
Click here to view full judgement.
T.R.Sood, Member (A) -
(1.) THESE appeals are directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 12.2.2013 raising common issues by the assessee and Revenue and therefore same were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order.
ITA No. 253/Chd/2013 - Assessee's appeal
(2.) IN this appeal the assessee has raised the following grounds:
1 1. (a) That the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -II, Ludhiana has erred in holding that the reasonable opportunity was provided to the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings as per finding given by him in para 3.4 of his order.
(b) That the worthy CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that on all the dates as mentioned by the Ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee has been making the compliances, filing requisite details from time to time and photo copies of the impounded documents (excluding the list of the stock drawn at the time of survey and the attendance cards of the workers) were given on 19.12.2011 and the verification started thereafter, on some dates and for which the due compliance was made.
(c) That the Worthy CIT(A) has ignored the fact that show cause notice had been issued on 29.11.2011 and the delay in issuing the show cause notice was not attributable to the assessee, since the process of verification of impounded documents could have been started by the Ld. Assessing Officer earlier as well and, thus, under such circumstances, the finding of the Worthy CIT(A) in para 3.4 is totally unjustified.
(d) That the finding of the Worthy CIT(A) in para 3.4 is unjustified also for the reason that neither any case of non -compliance of any statutory notice has been made out by the Ld. Assessing Officer nor any penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) has been initiated/levied by the Ld. Assessing Officer.
2. That the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in holding that the capital subsidy of Rs. 17,75,000/ - as received by the appellant is a revenue receipt, though, the Worthy CIT(A) has agreed that as per the scheme of Punjab Govt., it was a capital subsidy.
That the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 80,153/ - u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per finding given in para 7.5 of his order.
(3.) (a) That the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 43,69,886/ -, out of the addition of Rs. 86,57,239/ - as made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on account of alleged salary and wages outside the books of accounts.
(b) The Worthy CIT(A) has failed to consider that the wages/salary of the workers had been duly recorded in the regular books of accounts and which were verified by the Ld. Assessing Officer during the course of Remand proceedings.
(c) That the Worthy CIT(A) has failed to consider the fact that the Ld. A.O. has wrongly extrapolated the amount of wages for the whole year on the basis of impounded attendance cards of two months i.e. August & September, 2008.
(d) That the confirmation of the part addition by the Worthy CIT(A) and the manner of confirming the same is against the facts and circumstances of the case.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.