Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee-firm filed its return of income (ROI) on 29.09.2009 declaring total income at Rs. ‘NIL’. The books of accounts of the firm are duly audited u/s 44AB and the report in form No 3 CA and 3CB dated 26/09/2009 were filed alongwith the ROI. The assessee-firm derives its income from sale of Petrol and Diesel and also from transport business. The A.O has completed his order u/s 143(3) on 7.1.2011.
From the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it is clear that the instructions issued in the Circulars by CBDT are applicable for pending cases also. Therefore, by keeping in view the ratio laid down in the aforesaid referred to cases, we are of the considered view that Instruction No.3/11, dated 09.02.2011 issued by the CBDT are applicable for the pending cases also and in the said instructions, monetary tax limit for not filing the appeal before the ITAT is Rs. 3.00 lakhs.
There is no dispute regarding the source of income of the assessee which is mainly from the business of purchase and sale of plots/lands. But it does not mean that such an assessee is debarred from purchasing and holding some plots/land as capital asset and claim benefit u/s 54F.
CIT(A) followed the earlier order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in part and not in toto. He was of the view that interest and salary to the partners be allowed but not interest to third parties and the depreciation was to be allowed as claimed in the original return because the claim made in the revised return could not be substantiated. However, he has brought nothing on record as to how and in what manner the claim in the revised return was not substantiated particularly when the then learned CIT(A) vide order dt. 30th March, 2007 accepted the filing of revised return and the said order on the issue of acceptance of revised return
It is settled position of law that where any issue is debatable, it cannot be corrected u/s 154 of the Act. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 is relevant wherein an action taken by Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the Act was found to be illegal.
In the instant case also, the assessee furnished all the details relating to its claim for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act and the Assessing Officer thoroughly examined the claim while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) and on being satisfied the claim was allowed. Therefore, in the present case, reopening of the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act is definitely a change of opinion which is not maintainable and therefore, the re-assessment framed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act after completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act by taking a view which was in consonance with the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court was not valid.
It is very clear that the assessee consciously split up the payments in whole of the year, which is impracticable, illogical as noted above and it was done just to circumvent the provisions of law. There was no justification for the assessee to split up the transactions of crores of rupees in small payments of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- everyday. Whatever plea was taken before the authorities below was not supported by any evidence.
In the present case, a categorical finding is recorded by the Tribunal that the books were never rejected. This aspect has not been considered by the Hon’ble High Court. In the circumstances, the reliance placed on the report of the DVO was misconceived”. By observing these observations, the decision of Hon’ble High Court was set aside and the order passed by the Tribunal was restored by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The facts in the present case are similar as in this case also no books of account were rejected before referring the matter u/s 142A of the Act.
The assessment is framed u/s. 153A of the IT Act, which is specifically meant for computation of undisclosed income, which is found during the course of search. The assessee in order to circumvent the provisions of law have tried to reduce the amount in question out of total undisclosed income determined in the course of search by claiming a bad debt which was never claimed in the regular books of account or in the original return of income filed u/s. 139(1) of the IT Act.
In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the partners Shri C.P. Mathur and Shri L.C. Mathur contributed Rs. 8 lacs and Rs. 4,30,000/- respectively as their capital and the Assessing Officer made the addition by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Income-tax Act. On a similar issue, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kewal Krishan & Partners, Sri Ganganagar (supra) held as under :-
