Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

If AO says that assessee not maintained books of account than there is no question of producing the same by the assessee

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2013 taxguru.in 943
Case Name
ACIT Vs Shri Pranbhai S Fultariya (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
2007- 08
Subscribe to download.

Already Upgraded? Log in.

Advertisement

ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH “A ”

Before Shri, A.K.Garodia, Accountant Member and Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member

ITA No. 2302-2303/Ahd/2010 – Assessment Year: 2007-08

ACIT V/s. Shri Pranbhai S Fultariya

ACIT, Central Circle- V/s. Nirav (Thaltej) Owners Association

Date of Hearing 29-04-2013

Date of Pronouncement 17-05-2013

OR D E R

PER Kul Bharat, Judicial Member:-

Both these appeals are filed by Revenue in two different cases, but since both are connected cases in view of this fact that ‘substantive’ addition was made in the hands of one assessee i.e., Shri Pranbhai S Fultariya and ‘protective’ addition was made in the hands of the other assessee i.e., Nirav (Thaltej) Owners Association. Both these appeals are being decided by way of common order for the sake of convenience.

2. Both these appeals are related to same assessment year (AY) i.e., AY 2007-08 and are directed against two separate orders of same Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-III, Ahmedabad (‘C IT(A)’ for short) both dated 13-04- 2010. Grounds raised by Revenue in the case of Shri Pranbhai S Fultariya in ITA No. 2302/Ahd/201 0 are as under:-

“1) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in directing the Assessing Officer to restrict the total receipts to Rs.3,01,15,915/- as against that of Rs. 7,23,44,731/- estimated by the AO and thereby restricting the addition @ 8% of the reduced receipts at Rs. 13,33,610/- as against that of Rs.57,87,580/-.

2) The ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts and in circumstances of the case in holding that there was no suppression of sales in spite of finding given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order after verifying and relying on the impounded documents.

3) The ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts by treating the individual ledger account of the buyer as books of accounts of the assessee.

4) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts by holding that the Assessing Officer ought to have invoked the provisions of section 145 of the Act in spite of the fact that the assessee did not produce the books of accounts during the course of assessment proceedings and in considering the fact that the assessment order has been passed u/s. 144 of the I.T. Act.”

3. Grounds raised by Revenue in the case of Nirav (Thaltej) Owners Association in ITA No. 2303/Ahd/201 0 are as under:-

“1) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the protective addition made in the hands of assessee AOP though the substantive addition made in the hands of Shri Pranbhai S Phultariya has been confirmed to the extent of Rs. 13,33,609/- in which the addition was made by the Assessing Officer on substantive basis.

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.