In the case of Manikanta Concerns vs. DCIT, ITAT Hyderabad held that the shortage at the time of purchase and the shortage at the time of sale are two different issues and it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that once the assessee has claimed shortage at the time of purchase
In the case of Pooja Industries vs. ITO, ITAT Chandigarh held that mere denial of deduction u/s 80IC, which the assessee has claimed on roller flour mills with a bonafide belief, would not lead to panel consequences.
In the case of Radha Nutirents Ltd. Vs. ITO the Hon’ble ITAT held that the assesse has failed to provide the loan confirmation of the loan received from Shri Kathirase Kumar and was also unable to provide an explanation as to why such confirmation could not be filed.
The issue in dispute raised in additional ground relating to non issue of the mandatory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is decided in favour of the assessee and we hold that the impugned assessment order dated 31.12.2009 passed u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act by the AO as invalid.
No new facts or material had come to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer to enable him to initiate re-assessment proceedings. All the material facts on which the Assessing Officer had based his purported reasons were available on record at the time when the original assessment order was passed.
Brief facts are that the assessee was registered as trust on 01.02.2001.Its application for registration as a charitable trust was granted on 27.12.2001. On 30.06.2002 the assessee received the IILM Undergraduate Business School,from the Ram Krishna and Sons Charitable Trust (RKSCT).
In our opinion since the assessed did not debit the amount to the Profit & Loss Account as an expenditure nor did the assessed claim any deduction in respect of the amount and considering that the assessed is following the mercantile system of accounting, the question of disallowing the deduction under section 43B not claimed would not arise.
Issue- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.10,83,555/- which was made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 43B of the Act as the service tax payable in the balance sheet was not deposited before due date of filing of return.
While executive action resulted in his passport being unjustifiably impounded, this rendered if impossible for the assessee to leave India. He virtually became an unwilling resident on Indian soil without his consent and against his will.
The only question here is whether reasons could at all be recorded after issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act. And, secondly, that as the reasons were recorded after the issuance of Section 148 notice, whether the proceedings were not vitiated.
