Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: TDS :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: empanelment :: cpt :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: due date for vat payment :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT Audit :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: form 3cd :: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD
 
 
From the Courts »
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21

DCIT,Circle-1,Ghaziabad. Vs. Daisy Investment (P) Ltd.,Modi Bhawan,Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad.AABCD1827E
July, 23rd 2012
              IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                     DELHI BENCH `B', NEW DELHI

               BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                                 &
              SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                          ITA No. 37/Del/2011
                        Assessment Year: 2006-07

DCIT,                              Vs.        Daisy Investment (P) Ltd.,
Circle-1,                                     Modi Bhawan,
Ghaziabad.                                    Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad.
                                              AABCD1827E

(Appellant)                                   (Respondent)

              Appellant by : Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Sr. DR
                Respondent by : Sh. Pradeep Denodia, CA


                                  ORDER

PER A.D. JAIN, J.M.

      This is Department's appeal for A.Y. 2006-07 against the order dated
07.10.2010 passed by the ld. CIT(A)-Ghaziabad.
2.    The only issue raised by the Department is against the action of the
ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 75,25,000/- made by the AO,
representing loans received by the assessee during the year as follows: -
     (i) M/s Ashoka Mercantile Ltd.           Rs. 64,25,000/-
     (ii) M/s Sunrise Soya Products Ltd.      Rs. 11,00,000/-
              Total                           Rs. 75,25,000/-
Both these loans were received by cheque.
3.    The AO required the assessee to furnish bank statement and
confirmations from the creditor parties.    As per the assessment order,
however, the assessee furnished neither the bank statements, nor the
          ITA No. 37/D/2011                    Daisy Investment (P) Ltd. 2





confirmations from the parties and simply confirmed the transactions on its
letter head. The AO observed that copies of returns filed by the creditor
Companies had also been filed, but they were of no avail to the assessee,
as they did not make transparent the creditworthiness of the creditor
Companies and only showed the income earned by them.                    The AO
observed that in the absence of confirmations from the parties and the
bank statement of the assessee, the unsecured loans of Rs. 75,25,000/-
remained unexplained. It was, as such, that the AO added this amount to
the income of the assessee Company u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, as unexplained
credit.
4.    The ld. CIT(A), by virtue of the impugned order, deleted the addition
made by the AO.
5.    Challenging the said action of the ld. CIT(A) before us, the ld. DR has
argued that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition correctly made
by the AO; that while doing so, the ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the fact that
the assessee Company had failed to adduce any evidence in support of its
claim of having raised two unsecured loans totaling to Rs. 75,25,000/-; that
no such evidence had been produced by the assessee Company in the
assessment proceedings, in spite of the fact that in the questionnaire dated
28.07.2008 issued by the AO to the assessee, the assessee was
specifically asked, as per point nos. 7 and 14, to file the complete details of
the unsecured loans, to furnish names, PANs, assessment status and
evidence to prove the identity/capacity and genuineness of the loan
creditors; that also, vide order sheet entry dated 30.12.2008, the assessee
was asked to furnish confirmations from the creditor Companies who had
advanced the unsecured loans to the assessee; that the ld. CIT(A) has
erred in giving relief to the assessee Company, even though the assessee
Company had miserably failed to discharge its onus to prove the identity,
capacity and genuineness of the loan creditors during the assessment
      ITA No. 37/D/2011                           Daisy Investment (P) Ltd. 3


proceedings, despite ample opportunity having been granted to the
assessee for the purpose; and that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in taking into
cognizance fresh evidence in violation of the provisions of Rule 46A of the
I.T. Rules.
6.    The ld. Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, has placed
strong reliance on the impugned order. It has been submitted that the ld.
CIT(A) has not committed any error in deleting the addition which was
wrongly made by the AO; that the creditor Companies had submitted their
confirmations dated 20.02.2010 and 02.05.2009, respectively (copies at
APB 65 & 66), which the assessee had filed before the CIT alongwith its
written submission, on 26.03.2010; since the AO, in the assessment
proceedings, had not required the assessee to file such confirmations and
as such, there had been no occasion to file such confirmations before the
AO in the assessment proceedings, that the CIT(A) had remanded the
matter to the AO; that in the remand proceedings, the creditor companies
had filed their confirmations alongwith complete details directly before the
AO u/s 133(6) of the Act and satisfied therewith, the AO did not submit any
remand report to the CIT(A); that it was therefore, that the CIT(A) correctly
took them into consideration and deleted the addition on the basis thereof;
and that therefore, there being no merit in the appeal of the Department,
the same be dismissed.
7.    We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record.
The AO made the addition by observing as follows: -
                     "The assessee vide questionnaire dated
              28.07.2008 was required to furnish the bank statements.
              Vide order sheet entry dated 30.12.2008, the assessee
              was also required to furnish confirmation from the above
              mentioned two parties. But the assessee has neither
              furnished the bank statement nor the confirmations from
              the above mentioned two parties. The assessee company
              has simply confirmed the transaction on its letter head.
              Copy of e-returns filed by the above companies have also
      ITA No. 37/D/2011                           Daisy Investment (P) Ltd. 4


              been filed but the same are of no help as it does not make
              transparent the creditworthiness of these companies. It
              only shows the income earned by the said companies. In
              absence of confirmations from the parties who have
              advanced loans and the bank statement from the
              assessee, the unsecured loans raised during the year of
              Rs. 75,25,000/- remain unexplained and added to the
              income of the assessee company u/s 68 of the Income Tax
              Act, 1961 being unexplained credit."
8.    It is, thus, apparent that the addition was made for the absence of
confirmations from the creditor parties of the assessee.
9.    Before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), in the written submissions
filed by the assessee, it was, inter-alia, contended as follows: -
             "Further, without prejudice to what has been submitted
            herein-in-above, it is stated that as revealed from the
            impugned assessment order (last page of the order), the
            AO has observed in that order as under:
                    "...vide order sheet entry dated 30.12.2008,
                    the assessee was also required to
                    confirmation from the above mentioned two
                    parties..."
            It is submitted with due respect and humility that the
            assessee company vehemently denies the aforesaid
            observations of the Assessing Officer as the assessee
            company's representative did appear before the AO on
            30.12.2008 with company's letter of even date pursuant
            to notice dated 26.12.2008 addressed to the Principal
            Officer of the company in connection with queries with
            respect of directors of the company and one firm.
            It is stated that had anything was not to the satisfaction
            of AO then he could have confronted the assessee
            company to enable it (assess-company) to file the details
            and information to his satisfaction. He did not ask for, to
            the best of our knowledge and belief, hence, could not be
            filed earlier.
            The tenor of the AO's letter dated 04.11.2008 would
            reveal that after submission of information the matter
            ended. Had the AO needed any further information he
            could have informed the assessee about the same. He
            could have also summoned the creditors to verify these
            loans. Nothing was heard from the AO except though the
      ITA No. 37/D/2011                        Daisy Investment (P) Ltd. 5


           impugned assessment order.          So far as the bank
           statement is concerned. It was filed before the AO as
           early as 04.11.2008.
           Now the confirmation letters, copy of their bank
           statement(s)/their bank ledger(s) are also contained in
           the paper book from page 65-127 as detailed and
           referred to in the paper book.
           Be that as it may, as we have filed the confirmations from
           the parties concerned and their bank statements/bank
           ledger(s) in their books which were obtained from them
           and request your honor to kindly delete the impugned
           additions and oblige."
10.   From the above, it comes out that it is the stand of the assessee that
the AO had never required the assessee to file the confirmations and it was
therefore, that none were filed during the assessment proceedings. The
CIT(A) remanded the matter to the AO. In the remand proceedings, the
AO, invoking the provisions of section 133(6) of the Act, directly required
the creditor Companies to furnish the particulars of their transactions with
the assessee. The creditor Companies made full compliance, furnishing
their confirmations and complete details before the AO and forwarded
copies thereof to the assessee. The AO got satisfied with such compliance
u/s 133(6) of the Act. As such, the AO did not submit any remand report to
the CIT(A) despite reminders. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition on the
basis of the confirmations and other supporting documents, explanations
and copies of account, observing as follows: -
                  "From the perusal of documentary evidence and
           submissions filed during appellate proceedings, it is
           more than clear that proper confirmation letters along
           with supporting documents, explanations and also copies
           of accounts have been furnished in respect of the two
           impugned loans.      Not only the two parties have
           confirmed to have given these loans but also have
           submitted their PAN and also the exact nature of these
           loan transactions.
                  In absence of any remand report, it is considered
           that nothing adverse has been noted by the Assessing
           Officer.
       ITA No. 37/D/2011                           Daisy Investment (P) Ltd. 6


                 In view of proper confirmation and detailed
           convincing narration and explanation regarding the
           transactions, I consider the impugned loans to be
           genuine and explained. The addition of Rs. 7,25,000/- is,
           therefore, deleted."
11.   Though the Department has contended that the ld. CIT(A) has
violated the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules in admitting and taking
into consideration the aforesaid evidence, we find no force in such stand of
the Department.       This is so, because of the reason delineated herein
below.
12.   Before the ld. CIT(A), as noted above, the assessee had filed written
submissions, which are, inter alia, to the following effect: -
              "Our submission with respect to the various grounds of
             appeal, in seriatim, are as under:
             Ground No. 1 & 2: - These are general grounds and do
             arise out of the impugned assessment order.
             Ground Nos. 3 & 6: - This ground relates to addition of
             Rs. 75,25,000/- being loans received during the previous
             year relevant to the assessment year 2006-07 under
             reference, from the following two parties: -
             (i) M/s Ashoka Mercantile Ltd. Delhi           64,25,000/-
             (ii)Sunrise Soya Products Ltd., Delhi         11,00,000/-
                                                          75,25,000/-
             Vide questionnaire dated 28.07.2008 (appearing at pages
             1-5 of the paper book) the following query was raised by
             the AO: -
                    "7 complete details along with supporting
                    evidences of the utilization of unsecured loans
                    and secured loans raised during the year".
             The assessee company furnished, vide its letter dated
             10.10.2008 (appearing at pages 6-15 of the paper book),
             the complete details of utilization of unsecured loans
             taken by the company, as under: -
                    "7. Complete details of utilization of
                    unsecured loans taken by the company are
                    as under:
  Name of party            Address of party      Amount      of    Utilization   of
                                                 Loan              unsecured loan
  Ashoka Mercantile        CR-234,    Ground     60,00,000/-       Use          for
  Ltd.                     Floor,                                  business
                           Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-                     purpose
     ITA No. 37/D/2011                           Daisy Investment (P) Ltd. 7

                         110092
Sunrise       Soya       CR-234,     Ground    11,00,000/-       Use           for
Products Ltd.            Floor, Laxmi Nagar,                     business
                         Delhi-110092                            purpose
            Further, vide question no. 14 of the aforesaid
            questionnaire dated 28.07.2008 the following question
            was raised:
                   "14. Furnish the name, PAN and place of
            assessment of the person(s) from whom the unsecured
            loan(s)/share application money/share capital (if any)
            have been obtained during the year along with the
            evidence(s) to prove the identity (photocopy of PAN
            Card), capacity (copy of ITR) and genuineness (copy of
            bank statement showing the relevant transaction) of the
            depositor(s)"
            The assessee company replied the question No. 14 under
            the impression that it was relating to share application
            money and therefore stated vide letter dated 10.10.2008,
            supra, as under:
                   "14. During the year company has not taken any
            share application money"
            Later on, during the course of assessment proceedings,
            the AO asked for certain information and explanation in
            respect of `Loans and advances' which were duly
            submitted before him vide letter dated 04.11.2008 (refer
            to pages 16-34 of the paper book)
            It was submitted by the assessee company vide letter
            dated 04.11.2008, supra, before the AO that it had
            obtained `loans and advances' from time to time from
            M/s Ashoka Mercantile Ltd. and M/s Sunrise Soya
            Products Ltd. for the business purpose.
            It, further, submitted before the AO the copies of
            accounts of the two parties in its books of accounts and
            also acknowledgement receipts of E-Returns of the said
            two parties i.e. M/s Ashoka Mercantile Ltd. and M/s
            Sunrise Soya Products Ltd. which provided PAN of the
            respective parties.
            The assessee company also filed copy of its bank account
            with State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, New Delhi where
            the receipts of the amount from the parties concerned are
            duly reflected.
            From the copy of the account of M/s Ashoka Mercantile
            Ltd. (refer to page 17 of the paper book) it would be
            evident that during previous year relevant to assessment
      ITA No. 37/D/2011                         Daisy Investment (P) Ltd. 8


           year in reference the outstanding loan was only Rs. 60
           lacs and not Rs. 64.25 lacs as added by the AO. It would
           be observed from the statement that the amounts taken
           from it during the year itself leaving a balance of Rs. 60
           lacs as outstanding at the end of the year. Therefore, the
           AO made addition of Rs. 64.25 lacs instead of Rs. 60 lacs
           in the impugned assessment order.
           In the balance sheet also unsecured loans have been
           shown at Rs. 71,00,000/- which comprise of Rs.
           60,00,000/- pertaining to M/s Ashoka Mercantile Ltd.
           and Rs. 11,00,000/- pertaining to M/s Soya Products Ltd.
           (for Balance Sheet etc. refer to pages 35-43 of the paper
           book).
           It is worthwhile mentioning here that the interest paid
           amounting to Rs. 2,31,336/- (refer to page 44 of the
           paper book) on such loans from the two parties
           concerned has duly been allowed by the AO while
           computing the assessment as the net loss as returned by
           the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,70,200/- has been
           accepted as such. The details of interest paid of Rs.
           2,31,336/- along with E-TDS return are appearing at
           pages 53 and 54-64 respectively of the paper book.
           In the view of the above facts and in the circumstances,
           of the case the additions made of Rs. 64,25,000/- and Rs.
           11,00,000/- may kindly be directed to be deleted..."
            (the remaining relevant portion of the written
           submissions of the assessee, as filed before the ld.
           CIT(A) already stands reproduced hereinabove)
13.   On receipt of the said written submissions of the assessee, the ld.
CIT(A) remanded the matter to the AO. However, despite reminders, no
remand report was furnished by the AO. In this regard, the ld. CIT(A) has
observed as follows in para 5 of the order under appeal;
      "the matter was remanded to the AO. However, no remand report
      received from the AO in spite of reminders. Therefore, the appeal is
      being decided on merits".

14.   In the remand proceedings, it is seen, the AO directly required the
creditor Companies, under section 133(6) of the Act, to furnish the
particulars of their transactions with the assessee. It was in compliance of
      ITA No. 37/D/2011                        Daisy Investment (P) Ltd. 9


this mandatory legal requirement that the creditor Companies filed before
the AO, their respective confirmations and all the particulars, as follows:





ASHOKA MERCANTILE
   a) Copy of Letter to DCIT, Ghaziabad
   b) Copy of PAN CARD of Ashoka Mercantile Ltd.
   c) Copy of Assessment Order of A.Y. 2006-07
   d) Copy of Acknowledgement Receipt of E-Return
   e) Copy of Annual Accounts for the year ended 31.03.2006
   f) Confirmation of amount paid and receipt to Daisy
   g) Copy of Bank Statements
   h) Details of amount received from Daisy against loan paid
   i) Details of Interest received on ICD as on 31.03.2006
SUNRISE SOYA PRODUCTS LTD.
   a) Copy of Letter to DCIT, Ghaziabad
   b) Copy of PAN CARD of Sunrise Soya Products Ltd.
   c) Copy of Acknowledgement Receipt of E-Return
   d) Copy of Annual Accounts for the year ended 31.03.2006
   e) Confirmation of amount paid and receipt to Daisy
   f) Copy Bank Statements
   g) Copy of Assessment Order of A.Y. 2006-07
   h) Copy of Ledger of Daisy Investment
   i) Details of ICD as on 31.03.2006
   Copies of all the above documents have also been filed before us and
   are placed at pages 128 to 185 of the assessee's Paper Book. In the
   Index to the Paper Book, in accordance with Rule 18(3) of the ITAT
   Rules, 1963, it has been certified that all the aforesaid documents were:
      "Filed with AO by the creditors and copy to Assessee". This has
   nowhere been disputed by the Department.              It, therefore, stands
    ITA No. 37/D/2011                       Daisy Investment (P) Ltd. 10


established that in the remand proceedings, the AO, exercising power
under section 133(6) of the Act, required the assessee's creditors
directly to file the complete details of the transactions entered into by
them with the assessee. The creditor Companies made full compliance
and duly furnished before the AO, their confirmations, dated 25.06.2010
(copies at APB 128 to 129 and 151 to 152, respectively). The factum of
these confirmations having been filed before the AO u/s 133(6) of the
Act is available from the confirmations themselves, wherein, the
addressee has been given as:
`The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Room No. 201,
C.G.O. Complex, Ghaziabad.' (APB 128 and 151, respectively). Then,
the Subject in the confirmations states as follows:
`Information u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961 in the case of M/s
Daisy Investment Pvt. Ltd. for F.Y. 2005-06'
(APB 128 and 151, respectively)
Alongwith their confirmations, the creditors also filed before the AO:
ASHOKA MERCANTILE LTD:
    i.   Copy of PAN card on M/s Ashoka Mercantile Ltd.
   ii.   Copy of assessment order for A.Y. 2006-07
  iii.   Copy of acknowledgement receipt of e-return
  iv.    Copy of annual accounts for the year ended on 31.03.2006
   v.    Confirmation of amount paid and receipt to Daisy (the assessee)
  vi.    Copy of bank statements
 vii.    Details of amount received from Daisy against loan paid
 viii.   Details of interest received on ICD as on 31.03.2006
SUNRISE SOYA PRODUCTS :
    i.   Copy of PAN card of Sunrise Soya Products Ltd.
   ii.   Copy of acknowledgement receipt of e-return
  iii.   Copy of annual accounts for the year ended on 31.03.2006
         ITA No. 37/D/2011                       Daisy Investment (P) Ltd. 11


       iv.    Confirmation of amount paid and receipt to Daisy (the assessee)
        v.    Copy of bank statements
       vi.    Copy of assessment order for A.Y. 2006-07
      vii.    Copy of ledger of Daisy (the assessee)
      viii.   The details of ICD as on 31.03.2006
15.     The receipt of both the confirmations alongwith annexures by the ITI
on 25.6.2010 is available at APB 121 and 151, respectively.
16.     In their aforesaid confirmations, both the creditor parties of the
assessee have specifically stated as follows: -
         "(e) Company had given the said loan to Daisy Investment
              Pvt. Ltd. on interest @ 10% per annum.
          (f) Company has received back the said loan along with
              interest thereon from the above said party. Copy of
              statement & copy of Bank Statement of the company is
              enclosed.
          (g) We hereby certify that we had paid the said loan from our own funds
              and we have already received back the same from M/s Daisy
              Investment Pvt. Ltd. along with interest thereon."
17.     In both the confirmations, the names and addresses of the directors
of the Companies stand also given.
18.     The fact is that it was the creditor Companies who forwarded to the
assessee, copies of all the above documents filed by them before the AO in
the remand proceedings in compliance of the requirement of the provisions
of section 133(6) of the Act, as stated by the assessee in the index to the
Paper Book filed before us, as noted herein above.
19.     It appears that, obviously, the AO was fully satisfied with the
compliance made by the creditor Companies u/s 133(6) of the Act and it
was hence, that no remand report was furnished, despite reminders by the
CIT(A). After the compliance by the creditors, the AO was not left with
anything further to say in the matter.
20.     As such, there is no force in the contention on behalf of the
Department that the ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence in
      ITA No. 37/D/2011                        Daisy Investment (P) Ltd. 12


violation of the provisions of Rule 46A of the Rules. It is worthy of note that
whereas the confirmations filed by both the creditor Companies in
compliance u/s 133(6) of the Act in the remand proceedings are dated
25.06.2010 and were also received by the ITI on 25.6.10 itself, the
assessee Company's written submissions and application for additional
evidence before the CIT(A) are of 26.3.10. This shows that it was after the
filing of the application for additional evidence before the CIT(A), that the
evidence was filed before and considered by the AO three months
thereafter. Thus, the Department cannot have any grievance against the
CIT(A) having entertained additional evidence at the back of the AO,
particularly when the AO was duly supplied with the confirmations and all
connected material and the AO, having considered the same, did not
furnish any remand report before the CIT(A) inspite of reminders. In fact,
by remaining thus tacit, the AO conveyed his satisfaction qua the evidence
filed before him in the remand proceedings. The CIT(A) never entertained
any additional evidence at all and deleted the addition on the basis of the
aforesaid material filed with the AO in the remand proceedings.
21.   As for the merits of the action of the ld. CIT(A), it is seen that the
assessee had duly discharged its onus u/s 68 of the Act by filing complete
details of the unsecured loans taken, the utilization thereof, the copies of
account of the two creditor Companies in the books of account of the
assessee Company, the acknowledgement receipts of their e-returns,
providing their respective PANs, copy of the assessee's bank account with
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, New Delhi, wherein the receipts of the
loans had been duly reflected. The ld. CIT(A) duly took into consideration
that from the copy of the account of M/s Ashoka Mercantile Ltd., the
outstanding loan was of only Rs. 60 lakhs, rather than that of Rs. 64.25
lakhs, as added by the AO.     The ld. CIT(A) further took into consideration
the fact that in the balance sheet, unsecured loans of Rs. 71 lakhs had
      ITA No. 37/D/2011                       Daisy Investment (P) Ltd. 13




been shown, comprising of Rs. 60 lakhs pertaining to M/s Ashoka
Mercantile Ltd. and Rs. 11 lakhs regarding M/s Soya Products Ltd. The ld.
CIT(A) also took note of the fact that the interest of Rs. 2,31,336/-, paid on
such loans stood duly allowed by the AO, since the net loss of Rs.
1,70,200/-, as returned by the assessee, had been accepted as such. The
ld. CIT(A) also took into consideration the confirmations from the creditor
parties.
22.   It was on the above that the ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee
had duly furnished proper confirmation letters alongwith supporting
documents, explanations and copies of account and that not only had the
two creditor parties confirmed having given the loans, but they had also
submitted their PANs and also the exact nature of these loan transactions,
and that in the absence of any remand report from the AO, it was being
considered that nothing adverse had been noted by the AO.
23.   To reiterate, though the matter was remanded by the ld. CIT(A) to the
AO on receipt of the assessee's written submissions (supra), despite
reminders, no remand report was filed.       The ld. CIT(A) took the entire
evidence filed before the AO in remand proceedings into consideration. It
was only thereafter, and, in our considered opinion, rightly so, that the ld.
CIT(A) deleted the addition wrongly made by the AO.
24.   Hence, finding no error whatsoever in the Order of the ld.
Commissioner (Appeals), we hereby confirm the same.             The grievance
sought to be raised by the Department is found to be shorn of merit and it is
rejected as such.
       ITA No. 37/D/2011                       Daisy Investment (P) Ltd. 14




 25.   In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed.
       Order was pronounced in the open court on 20.07.12



             Sd/-                                                Sd/-
       (T.S. KAPOOR)                                       (A.D. JAIN)
  ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                    JUDICIAL MEMBER
 Dated: 20.07.12
 *Kavita

Copy forwarded to: -
 1.    Appellant
 2.    Respondent
 3.    CIT
 4.    CIT(A)
 5.    DR, ITAT

                           TRUE COPY
                                                                       By Order,



                                                       DEPUTY REGISTRAR
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Careers

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions