AO made the disallowance by invoking the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act, however nothing was brought on record on the basis of the comparative analysis to substantiate that the commission paid to the related parties was higher than the commission paid to unrelated parties.
The reopening has basically been done for two reasons – the first one being the alleged difference between Unsecured Loans from Directors in the Balance Sheet and Unsecured Loans from Directors in Audit Report under Form 3CD; and the second one
In the case of M/s ONS Creations Private Limited Vs. ITO, it was held by ITAT Delhi that if additional evidence can not be produced before AO for a reasonable cause by assessee, the CIT (A) must admit the additional evidences and assessee must be given an afresh opportunity of being heard.
In the case of Ms. Meena Rani Vs. ACIT, It was held by ITAT Delhi that If no satisfaction note has been recorded in the records of the searched persons but in the records of the assessee, assessment cannot be done U/s 153C
Issue before tribunal: Whether CIT can assume jurisdiction u/s 263 on the facts and circumstances of the case. Whether order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
In the case of ITO Vs. Sh. Mahender Singh, ITAT Delhi has held that addition cannot be made for Cash deposits in the bank account received against sale of land as undisclosed investment for mere failure of Assessee to Produce
In the present case also the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2010 in the name of the deceased assessee and claimed to have been served upon the deceased assessee who had already expired on 06.12.2002.
The language of section 14A includes that AO must record a satisfaction if he was unsatisfied with any incorrect claim of the assessee. If he failed to record such a finding then it cannot be said that he rightly invoked provision of section 14A.
Whether CIT (A) has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by assessee. Whether CIT (A) was right in sustaining the additions made by AO which are not applicable to the assessee.
Whether addition made by AO for undisclosed income of Rs 2,68,11,454/- is justifiable in view of the fact that assessee has rebutted onus cast of him with the help of information/ documents/evidence, which he could have made to support his claimed that he has not done any transaction with alleged party.
