Assessee had declared an income by filing its return. The said return was selected for scrutiny through CASS on the basis of AIR. Assessment u/s 144 was made, resulting in an addition of Rs. 28,50,000/- as the assessee was found to have failed to explain the source of investment.
Assesee claimed deduction of Rs. 1.33 crores under Section 10A of the Act. On being called upon to explain about the eligibility of deduction, the assessee stated that it was entitled to deduction in view of fulfillment of all the requisite conditions as prescribed under Section 10A.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual derives income from manufacture of wire & wire ropes. The return was filed declaring total income at ` 4,07,734/-. However, the assessment was completed at an income of ` 5,08,730/- vide order dated 25.06.2007 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act.
It is settled principle of law apparent is real onus is on the person who alleges that apparent is not real. Once the assessee has submitted the evidence by way of bank account of JPC supporting his contention that the assessee has taken loan for the payment of labour payment incurred by it.
In this case merely on the basis of statement recorded during the search where Smt. Meena Garg i.e the assessee has said that she was not running any business concern in the name of M/s Punjab Timber Trading Co (Proprietorship Concern of the Assessee) Assessing officer has added the Income of the Assessee to Income of Punjab Plywood Industries in which male members of the family were partners.
Learned counsel submitted that during the course of search and seizure action, no incriminating document, material or unaccounted assets were found from the assessee. Even for the year of search i.e. A.Y. 2008-09, no addition has been made.
The only issue arising in the instant appeal is the maintainability or otherwise in law, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, of the deletion of the penalty levied u/s.271AAA of the Act by the ld. CIT(A) vide his impugned order, which is in fact a combined order for A.Ys. 2004-05, 2008-09 and 2009-10.
While perusing the profit and loss account of the assessee, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed a loss of Rs.93,63,235/- on account of loss on foreign currency futures. The AO was of the strong belief that the loss cannot be allowed in the light of the provisions of section 43(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) r.w. clause (ac) of section 2 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act 1956.
Though, assessee has claimed that the amount received was not in the nature of loan/advance, but, towards purchase of land in the name of company, however, assessee has not produced even a single evidence to justify the aforesaid claim.
In the instant case, the revised return of income was filed within the time prescribed u/s 139(5) of the Act. Even though the assessed filed the revised return of income after the receipt of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, yet the admitted fact remains that the assessing officer did not seek any type of particulars in that notice.
