Brief of the case:
ITAT Delhi in DCIT Vs Deepsons Southend held that if the assessee had filed an application u/r 46A with the request to admit the additional evidences annexed with the supporting documents like of balance sheet, IT returns etc. and moreover all the conditions of rule 46A were fulfilled and were necessary to go to the root of the matter while deciding the issues to which they relate.
If further held that if there is change in the profit sharing ratio of the partnership and all the partners remain same in the new partnership deed then that would not be change in the constitution of the firm so the loss of the firm could be carried forward.
If further held that the expense can be booked in the year in which the quantum of liability has been fixed irrespective of the year of rendering of services because until the liability has been fixed the same could not be booked in the books of account.
If further held that any penalty in the form of compensatory penalty should be allowed because the same was not for breaking the law.
If further held that, if the facts of the case have been changed from the earlier years in which the decision was announced by the appellate authority then the rule of consistency should not be followed. Fresh judgment should be framed.
If further held that if the creditworthiness of the creditor from whom loan had been taken had been proved by the assessee then addition u/s 68 could not be made.
Facts of the case:
The assessee was a partnership firm and was carrying on the business of trading in readymade garments and accessories. Assessee filed return of income declaring NIL income. The case was selected for scrutiny and AO made certain additions which were challenged by assessee with CIT(A) who had deleted the additions, then revenue filed an appeal with ITAT on the following grounds:
