ITAT Mumbai held In the case of M/s. Rachana Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd. & M/s. Repute Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT that in the present case, the order of AO may be brief but that by itself is not a sufficient reason to hold the order of assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
It is held that Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.
ITAT Mumbai held in the case of Hassan Ali Khan vs. DCIT that the assessee claiming that he has no bank account or based on transfer instructions, no transfer of funds had, however, been effected, would be of little moment in-as-much as the addition is toward unexplained money or bank deposit.
ITAT held that Revenue has not disputed the fact that effective rate of interest paid by assessee in India was 6.62% on loans whereas Interest paid by assessee on loans taken from AE abroad was 5%. This was below the rate of interest assessee was paying on loans taken within India.
We are of the considered view that assuming of jurisdiction by the AO in this case is bad in law for the reasons inter alia that when the assessee has specifically claimed exemption u/s 10BA on the sum of duty drawback of Rs.3,72,186/- and the AO after applying its mind allowed the same, there was no tenable material with the AO to reopen the assessment;
The books of accounts are duly audited and no defect has been pointed out vis-a-vis the sales, purchase or profit. The purported defects are confined to cash book, which have no nexus with the trading results.
It is held that requirement of getting books of account audited can arise only where the books of account are maintained. In the absence of the maintenance of books of account, there can be no penalty u/s 271B of the Act.
In the absence of any addition having been made on incomes which the AO had reason to believe had escaped assessment, no addition of any other income could have been made and that the AO had exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order u/s 147.
It is crystal clear that the terms of Section 40A(3) are not absolute and that the genuine and bonafide transactions are not taken out of the sweep and it is open to the assessee to furnish to the satisfaction of the AO, the circumstances under which the payment in the manner prescribed u/s 40A(3) was not practicable or would have caused to the genuine difficulty to the payee.
ITAT held that the rate of profit @15% on estimated unaccounted sale is an arbitrary rate without any comparable cases. The best comparison is also available of the business of the assessee himself wherein he has shown net profit at the rate of 6%.
