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: articles on VAT and GST in India :: empanelment :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TDS :: due date for vat payment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: VAT Audit :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: form 3cd :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: VAT RATES :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: cpt
 
 
From the Courts »
  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
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International
 Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 International Taxation Vs. Virage Logic International India
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Vs. Moderate Leasing And Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
 ITO vs. Vikram A. Pradhan (ITAT Mumbai)

Income-tax Officer, Ward-4(4), New Delhi Vs M/s Life Line Biotech Ltd., B-86, 1st Floor, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-II, New Delhi
September, 09th 2014
       IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
             DELHI BENCH `D', NEW DELHI
     Before Sh. R. S. Syal, AM And Sh. A. T. Varkey, JM
            ITA No. 2620/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07
Income-tax Officer, Ward-4(4),    Vs M/s Life Line Biotech Ltd.,
New Delhi                            B-86, 1st Floor, Okhla Indl. Area,
                                     Phase-II, New Delhi
(APPELLANT)                          (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AAACL1154F

           Assessee by : Sh. Ashwani Taneja & Somil Aggarwal
                         & Rohan Khare, Adv.
           Revenue by : Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 03.09.2014      Date of Pronouncement : 8.9.2014

                                 ORDER
Per R. S. Syal, AM:

      This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by
the ld. CIT(A) on 16.3.2010 in relation to the assessment year 2006-07.

2.    The first ground is general which does not require any
adjudication.


3. The second ground of the appeal is against the deletion of addition of
Rs. 95,30,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 68 of the
Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act'), being the
unexplained share application money. Ground No. 9 of the appeal is
                                    2                    ITA No. 2620/Del/2010
                                                         Lifeline Biotech Limited

against accepting additional evidence by the ld. CIT(A) in violation of
under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, despite the fact that the
AO in his remand report had objected to the admission of additional
evidence.


4.   Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its
return declaring income of Rs.6,44,246/-. The assessee showed to have
received share application money to the tune of Rs.95,36,000/-. The
Assessing Officer, vide question no. 18 of the questionnaire dated
28.8.2008, required the assessee to furnish the details of share
application money introduced during the year with name/address/proof
of identity/PAN /confirmation etc. of each of the subscribers. The
assessee furnished only a bare list of persons who had paid share
application money amounting to Rs.95.36 lac vide its letter dated
10/20.10.2008. Neither any PAN details nor addresses or any other
particulars of the share applicants were given. Vide order sheet entry
dated 24.10.2008, the assessee was again asked to furnish complete
details/proofs of identity/confirmations and copies of Income-tax
Returns. Despite several reminders, the assessee failed to furnish such
details till the last date of hearing. In the light of these facts, the
Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.95.36 lac u/s 68 of the Act.
                                    3                   ITA No. 2620/Del/2010
                                                        Lifeline Biotech Limited

5.   During the course of first appellate proceedings, the assessee filed
additional evidence in the form of names and addresses of the share
applicants, PANs, mode of payment of share application money, details
of bank of the share applicants and the confirmations. It was requested
that the same be admitted under Rule 46A. The ld. CIT(A) sent such
evidence to the Assessing Officer requesting him to send the remand
report. The Assessing Officer, in remand report submitted vide his letter
dated 29.10.2010, requested the ld. CIT(A) not to admit the additional
evidence as more than adequate opportunities       were granted to the
assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, which it failed to
avail. In contesting the admission of additional evidence, the Assessing
Officer relied on sub-rule (1) of rule 46A to contend that the assessee
was never denied any opportunity to file additional evidence nor was it
prevented from doing so by sufficient cause. The ld. CIT(A) accepted
the additional evidence and thereafter, deleted the addition amounting to
Rs.95.36 lac made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act.          The Revenue is
aggrieved against the admission of additional evidence and the deletion
of the addition.


6.   We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant
material on record. In order to decide the ground challenging the
admission of additional evidence in contravention of rule 46-A, it is
relevant to accentuate certain details qua the granting of opportunity of
                                     4                     ITA No. 2620/Del/2010
                                                           Lifeline Biotech Limited

hearing by the AO.       Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on
22.11.2007 and was also served on the assessee. Vide notice dated
25.6.2008 issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessee was asked to furnish
copies of the Annual accounts with Schedules and Computation of
income, which were not furnished. Another notice dated 14.7.2008 u/s
142(1) was issued requesting the assessee to furnish the information as
earlier called for. This notice was served by hand through the Inspector.
The assessee requested for adjournment vide its letter dated 21.7.2008.
The documents were filed vide letter dated 8.6.2008 on 25.8.2008.
Thereafter, a detailed questionnaire along with the notices u/s 143(2) and
142(1) was issued on 28.8.2008, fixing the case for hearing on 5.9.2008.
On the assessee's request, the hearing was adjourned to 11.9.2008. On
that date again, the assessee requested for adjournment, which was
allowed and the hearing was adjourned to 15.9.2008. The assessee did
not attend on the scheduled date. Thereafter, notice for penalty u/s
271(1)(b) of the Act was issued. On 10.10.2008 and subsequently on
15.10.2008, 20.10.2008 and 31.10.2008, the assessee filed part details.
The hearing was adjourned on the assessee's request to 6.11.2008. The
assessee did not attend on 6.11.2008. A last opportunity was given vide
letter dated 11.11.2008 requiring the assessee to furnish the details and
produce books of accounts with bills/vouchers etc. on 18.11.2008. The
assessee failed to attend on that date also. Thereafter, a final opportunity
was given to the assessee vide letter dated 26.11.2008 fixing the date of
                                    5                    ITA No. 2620/Del/2010
                                                         Lifeline Biotech Limited




hearing as 3.12.2008. The Authorized Representative appeared on the
scheduled date and again filed only part details. Neither the books of
accounts nor any supporting bills/vouchers were produced before the
AO. That is how, the AO finalized the assessment on the basis of
whatever little material was available on record and made addition,
inter alia, u/s 68 of the Act. It is apparent from the above narration of
facts that the Assessing Officer gave countless opportunities to the
assessee for submitting the required details so that the assessment may
be completed in a proper manner. Except for part compliance made four
times in the month of October 2008, the assessee miserably failed to
furnish all the relevant details called for by the Assessing Officer. What
to talk of furnishing the details, the assessee even did not produce any
books of accounts and supporting bill/vouchers. Specifically, qua the
addition on account of share application money, the Assessing Officer
required the assessee to file confirmations from the persons who had
applied for shares along with their addresses, proofs of identity and PAN
etc. None of such details were filed except giving a bald list containing
only names of such persons. Left with no option, the Assessing Officer
added the same u/s 68 of the Act. Now, the moot question is whether the
ld. CIT(A) was justified in admitting the additional evidence in such
circumstances and then deleting the addition        by holding that the
assessee discharged the initial burden to prove the genuineness of the
credit entries. In deleting this addition, the ld. CIT(A) observed in para
                                     6                    ITA No. 2620/Del/2010
                                                          Lifeline Biotech Limited

4.3 of the impugned order: `that the Assessing Officer could not point
out any discrepancy in the evidences relied upon by the assessee. He has
neither brought out any direct or inferential evidence to contradict the
contention of the assessee. It is further observed that even that A.O has
vast powers u/s 131 and 133(6) of the Act, he has not used any of his
powers to verify the genuineness of the claim of the assessee by verifying
the documents furnished by it.' From the above observations of the ld.
first appellate authority, it is manifest that he has imputed inaction and
failure on the Assessing Officer in pointing out deficiencies in the
evidence, whereas the fact is that the assessee failed to file any evidence
before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment
proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) further noticed in the same para that: `the
share applicants ...... were existing on the file of the Income-tax
Department and their income-tax details were made available to the
AO.... it was equally the duty of the AO to have taken steps to verify
their assessment records and if necessary to also have them examined by
the respective AOs having jurisdiction over them (share applicants),
which has not been done by him'. Again we are unable to agree with the
ld. CIT(A) that the AO could have verified the records of the
Department, when the fact is that the assessee did not produce any detail
worth the name of such share applicants including their PAN Nos. or
addresses etc. The ld. CIT(A) appears to have been swayed by the
assessee's point of view and treated the entire additional evidence as a
                                     7                    ITA No. 2620/Del/2010
                                                          Lifeline Biotech Limited

gospel truth without feeling any need of verification, more specifically
when the assessee had adopted completely unreceptive attitude before
the AO. He decided the issue as if the Assessing Officer had also
examined the entire evidence and had not adversely commented on it.
We will discuss infra (paras 8.1 to 8.3 of this order) the infirmity
rendering the admission of the additional evidence by the ld. CIT(A) as
illegal, when the Assessing Officer opposed its admission tooth and nail
without deliberating upon the merits of such additional evidence.


7.1.   Now we turn to the view taken by the AO in the remand report
that the additional evidence be not admitted as the prescription of sub-
rule (1) of rule 46A was not satisfied. A perusal of this sub-rule
transpires that an assessee can file additional evidence, inter alia, under
clause (b) on the ground that he was prevented by sufficient cause from
producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the
Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) has covered the case of the assessee
under this clause of rule 46A(1) by holding that it was prevented from
filing such evidence including the particulars of share applicants with
their addresses and PAN etc. before the AO due to serious differences
amongst the directors which paralyzed the entire business during the
June 2008 to December 2008. We find that such position stated before
the ld. CIT(A) and so accepted by him without any substantiation, runs
contrary to what emanates from the assessment order itself. It can be
                                    8                   ITA No. 2620/Del/2010
                                                        Lifeline Biotech Limited

noticed that the assessee filed part details on four occasions during the
month of October 2008. If there was really any dispute going on
amongst the directors during the period June 2008 to December 2008
which prevented the assessee from filing the requisite information as
called for by the A.O, then how the assessee succeeded in furnishing
part information four times in a row in the month of October 2008 itself,
which ostensibly falls within the so-called period of dispute. Further,
our attention has not been drawn towards any material to demonstrate
that such reasonable cause of the existence of dispute amongst the
directors at the material time was brought to the notice of the AO during
the course of assessment proceedings. There is no change in the position
before us as well inasmuch as despite a specific requisition, the ld. AR
failed to bring any material on record to establish that there was any
dispute amongst the directors during the course of assessment
proceedings, which coincidently came to an end with the passing of the
assessment order. This makes the intention of the assessee patent that it
was not willing to share the crucial details with the Assessing Officer
and intentionally avoided furnishing the same during the course of
assessment proceedings.


7.2.   It can also be seen from para 4 of the impugned order that : `all
these share holders are family members and associated concerns.' If
the assessee could file the list of share applicants during the so-called
                                    9                    ITA No. 2620/Del/2010
                                                         Lifeline Biotech Limited

paralyzed phase of business, we fail to comprehend as to what prevented
it in not furnishing the addresses and PANs of such persons, all of
whom are admittedly the family members and associated concerns.
When the facts of the case are considered in totality, it becomes crystal
clear that the assessee adopted a hostile attitude and intentionally
avoided extending co-operation to the AO during the course of
assessment proceedings. The theory of the `dispute amongst the
directors' propounded by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) to make it
look like a reasonable cause in terms of rule 46A, therefore, falls to the
ground.


8.1.   Be that as it may, it is seen that the ld. CIT(A) sent the details
furnished by the assessee to the AO asking for the remand report. As
discussed above, the Assessing Officer strongly objected to the
admission of such additional evidence by contending that the case was
not covered under any of the four clauses of rule 46A(1). It was also
stated in the remand report that more than adequate opportunities were
granted to the assessee to comply with the requirements and hence there
could be no reason to accept that the assessee was prevented by a
reasonable cause in producing such evidence called for during the course
of assessment proceedings. The remand report has been reproduced on
pages 2 and 3 of the impugned order, from which it is manifest that the
AO simply objected to the admission of additional evidence in the light
                                        10                     ITA No. 2620/Del/2010
                                                               Lifeline Biotech Limited

of the fact that there was a complete failure on the part of the assessee
during the course of the assessment proceedings. He further mentioned
that the submission of the details later on would not disapprove the
reasons on which the additions were made. It is axiomatic that the sum
and substance of the Assessing Officer's remand report is that he
strongly objected to the admission of additional evidence for the reasons
discussed above and as such had no reason to embark upon the exercise
of verifying the correctness of the additional evidence. The ld. CIT(A)
rejected the view point of the AO by holding that the prescription of sub-
rule (1) of rule 46-A was fulfilled. Ex consequenti,             the additional
evidence was accepted, but without conveying to the Assessing Officer
that his solitary preliminary objection taken in the remand report was
rejected and he may verify such additional evidence on merits as the
additional evidence was going to be admitted.


8.2.    At this juncture, it would be relevant to note the mandate of rule
46A. Sub-rule (1) enumerates four circumstances in which the assessee
can file additional evidence before the ld. CIT(A), which, inter alia,
include a case (b) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause
from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by
the Assessing Officer. Sub-rule (3) is important for our purpose, which
reads as under : -

       `(3) The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the
       Commissioner (Appeals) shall not take into account any evidence produced
                                         11                      ITA No. 2620/Del/2010
                                                                 Lifeline Biotech Limited

       under sub-rule (1) unless the Assessing Officer has been allowed a
       reasonable opportunity--

       (a) to examine the evidence or document or to cross-examine the witness

       produced by the appellant; or

       (b) to produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal of the
       additional evidence produced by the appellant.'



8.3.    It is discernible on a bare perusal of this sub-rule that the CIT(A)
shall not take into account any fresh evidence filed by the assessee
before him unless the Assessing Officer has been allowed `a reasonable
opportunity' to examine such evidence or document etc. filed by the
assessee or to produce any evidence or document etc. in rebuttal of such
additional evidence produced by the assessee. Thus it is divulged that
unless the Assessing Officer is allowed `a reasonable opportunity' to do
this, the CIT(A) cannot take into account such additional evidence
produced by the assessee before him. The expression `a reasonable
opportunity' means an effective opportunity and not a mere eye wash.
Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it can be seen that the AO
objected to the admission of additional evidence in the remand report on
a preliminary issue of the assessee's case being not covered within any
of the four clauses of sub-rule (1) of rule 46A. As he opined that the
additional evidence was not liable to be admitted, he naturally could not
have delved into vetting of such evidence. The ld. CIT(A) rejected such
contention and did not consider it expedient to inform the Assessing
Officer that he was going to admit the additional evidence as in his
                                    12                   ITA No. 2620/Del/2010
                                                         Lifeline Biotech Limited

opinion the case was covered under clause (1)(b) of rule 46A(1) and that
the Assessing Officer may examine such additional evidence on merits
and also produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal of
such additional evidence produced by the appellant, if any. By not
communicating to the Assessing Officer about the rejection of his
request and proceeding to admit the additional evidence without giving
any further opportunity to examine the additional evidence on merits, the
ld. CIT(A) violated    the prescription of sub-rule (3) of Rule 46A.
Fulfillment of the mandate of sub-rule (3) is a pre-condition for
accepting any additional evidence. The natural corollary is that any fresh
evidence accepted in violation of this provision, is liable to be ignored.
Since, the ld. CIT(A) failed to give `a reasonable opportunity' to the
AO, in our considered the mandate of sub-rule (3) of rule 46A has not
been complied with, thus jeopardizing the admission of the additional
evidence.


9.   When we consider the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the
instant case, it is patently borne out that the assessee intentionally
ignored the assessment proceedings and no effective case has been made
out that it was prevented by a sufficient cause in producing the books of
account and relevant evidence before the Assessing Officer during the
course of assessment proceedings. However, considering the fact that the
assessee did place such things before the ld. CIT(A) and the further fact
                                    13                     ITA No. 2620/Del/2010
                                                           Lifeline Biotech Limited

that the purpose of assessment is to determine correct total income, we
are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet
adequately if the assessee is granted one more opportunity to adduce
necessary details and books of account etc. before the Assessing Officer
enabling him to finalize the assessment as per law. Even otherwise, the
requirement of sub-rule (3) of Rule 46A can be met under the given
circumstances, if either the ld. CIT(A) is directed to send the additional
evidence to the AO by communicating that his threshold objection was
not acceptable and he may examine the additional evidence on merits or
the matter is restored to the AO with a direction to decide this issue
afresh after taking into consideration the additional evidence filed by
the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and allowing a further opportunity to
the assessee to lead further evidence, if any. We feel that the second
course of action is more befitting and time saving as well. We, therefore,
set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of AO for
deciding the question of addition u/s 68 afresh as per law after allowing
a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.


10.   We want to clarify that no reference has been made in this order to
the decisions relied upon by the ld. AR in support of his case because
none of them is germane to the situation obtaining in the instant case.
These decisions deal with other aspects of rule 46A, which do not cohere
with the factual scenario prevailing before us. We further want to make
                                    14                   ITA No. 2620/Del/2010
                                                         Lifeline Biotech Limited

it clear that the Assessing Officer would make the assessment afresh as
per law uninfluenced by any observations made in this order touching
the merits of the case, which have been made simply to demonstrate that
the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in accepting the additional evidence and
then deleting the additions without affording a reasonable opportunity to
the Assessing Officer.


11.   Before parting with these grounds, we consider it apposite to deal
with the contention of the ld. AR that the powers of CIT(A) are co-
terminus with those of Assessing Officer inasmuch as he can also do
what Assessing Officer can do. Relying on a couple of decisions, he
tried to justify the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition on
appreciation of additional evidence filed before him by arguing that it
fell within his domain to admit additional evidence since the appellate
proceedings are continuation of the assessment proceedings. This
contention, in our considered opinion, is partly correct. There is not and
cannot be any dispute about such proposition laid down by the Hon'ble
Courts. However, the ratio decidendi of such decisions needs to be
viewed in the backdrop of the facts which were before the Hon'ble
Courts and more importantly, the context in which these were made.
There can be no gainsaying that the CIT(A) can make an inquiry, which
was necessary on the facts of the case, but was not made by the
Assessing Officer. But, this proposition cannot be stretched to such an
                                    15                    ITA No. 2620/Del/2010
                                                          Lifeline Biotech Limited




extent so as to substitute assessment proceedings with the appellate
proceedings. There is hardly any need to emphasize that it is the
prerogative of the Assessing Officer to make an assessment. The
assessee has no choice to indirectly bid goodbye to the Assessing Officer
by not producing books of account and relevant details and instead opt
to be indirectly assessed by the CIT(A), in the garb of co-terminus
powers of CIT(A), by filing such things before the first appellate
authority, as has been sought to be done in the instant case.               The
complexion of the case before us is that there is no deficiency on the part
of the Assessing Officer to conduct inquiry, which in the opinion of the
ld. CIT(A), was warranted. Rather, we are confronted with a situation of
complete failure on the part of the assessee to extend any co-operation to
the Assessing Officer. This contention advanced on behalf of the
assessee is devoid of merits and hence jettisoned.


12.   We, therefore, allow ground No. 9 and also allow ground No. 2 for
statistical purposes.


13.1. Ground No. 3 of the appeal is against the deletion of addition of
Rs.7,09,812/- made by the A.O. on account of prior period expenses
representing sales tax for the year 2000-01. The Assessing Officer
noticed that a sum of Rs. 7,09,812/- (Rs. 3,00,000/- plus Rs. 4,09,812/-)
was paid for the financial year 2000-01 and the same being prior period
                                      16                  ITA No. 2620/Del/2010
                                                          Lifeline Biotech Limited

expenditure, was not allowed as deduction. The ld. CIT(A) overturned
the assessment order on this point.

13.2.      After considering the rival submissions and perusing the
relevant material on record, we find that this issue is no more res integra
in view of the Special Bench decision in the case of DCIT Vs Glaxo
Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. (2007) 107 ITD 343 (Chd.) (SB)
in which it has been held that deduction for sales tax or other tax and
duty etc. is allowable u/s 43B on payment basis. As the nature of the
amount paid by the assessee, being sales tax is not disputed and the
further fact that such sum was paid during the previous year, we are of
the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing this
claim. This ground is not allowed.


14.1. Ground No. 4 of the appeal is against the deletion of addition of
Rs. 37,04,440/- made by the A.O by disallowing Marketing expenses.
The Assessing Officer observed that the amount of Marketing expenses
increased from Rs. 91.56 lac in the preceding year to Rs. 1.85 crore in
the current year. The assessee was called upon to file details of such
expenses. Only summary sheet of such expenses under broader heads
was given without producing any supporting bills/vouchers. Considering
these facts, the Assessing Officer made disallowance @ 20% of
Marketing expenses, which resulted into an addition of Rs. 37,04,440/-.
                                     17                    ITA No. 2620/Del/2010
                                                           Lifeline Biotech Limited

The ld. CIT(A), on the basis of details furnished before him as additional
evidence, came to hold that no disallowance was called for.


14.2.     Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant
material on record, it is observed that the assessee did not furnish
supporting bill/vouchers of such expenses before the AO for
examination. Since, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by relying on
the additional evidence in contravention of rule 46A(3) [as discussed
supra],     following the view taken hereinabove,       we set aside the
impugned order on this score and remit the matter to the file of AO for a
fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence already filed
by the assessee or any other fresh evidence as the assessee may like to
file before him.


15.1.     Ground No. 5 of the appeal is against restricting the addition of
foreign travelling expenses amounting to Rs.11,30,474/- made by the
AO to Rs.2,00,000/-. A sum of Rs.56,52,374/- was claimed as deduction
on account of amount spent on travelling/boarding/and lodging expenses
of doctors. In the absence of any details filed by the assessee, the A.O
disallowed 20% of such expenses. This resulted into disallowance of Rs.
11,30,474/-. The ld. CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to Rs. 2,00,000/-
by considering the additional evidence filed before him.
                                    18                    ITA No. 2620/Del/2010
                                                          Lifeline Biotech Limited

15.2.   After considering the rival submissions, we find that the manner
in which this addition was made by the Assessing Officer and reduced
by the ld. CIT(A) is similar to the earlier grounds. Following the view
taken hereinabove, we set aside the impugned order on this issue and
send it to the AO for a fresh examination in the light of evidence filed or
to be filed by the assessee in support of the genuineness of expenses
claimed under this head.


16.1.   Ground No. 6 of the appeal is against the deletion of addition of
Rs.2,50,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained foreign
travelling expenses. It was noticed by AO that a sum of Rs. 2.50 lac was
spent on Director's travel to South Africa. Neither any bills for this
expense were produced nor any justification was shown for its
deductibility. The AO made disallowance for this sum, which came to be
deleted by the ld. CIT(A) on the consideration of the additional evidence
filed before him.


16.2.    Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant
material on record, it is again observed that the addition was made by
the Assessing Officer for lack of evidence and deleted by the ld. CIT(A)
by considering additional evidence without giving a reasonable
opportunity to the Assessing Officer in terms of Rule 46A(3).
Following the view taken hereinabove, we set aside the impugned order
                                    19                      ITA No. 2620/Del/2010
                                                            Lifeline Biotech Limited

on this score and send the matter to the AO for a fresh adjudication after
allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.


17.1.   Ground No. 7 of the appeal is against the deletion of addition of
Rs. 26,436/- made by the Assessing Officer out of Miscellaneous
expenses. This disallowance @ 20% of the expenses was made by the
Assessing Officer for want of details or evidence. The ld. CIT(A)
deleted the addition by considering the additional evidence.


17.2.   In our considered opinion and following the view taken
hereinabove, we set aside the impugned order on this issue and remit the
matter to the file of AO for taking a fresh decision after allowing a
reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in terms of option
to put forth any fresh evidence in support of this claim.


18.1.   Ground No. 8 of the appeal is against the deletion of addition of
Rs.1,06,436/- made by the A.O by disallowing depreciation claimed on
certain additions to the fixed assets. Vide questionnaire dated 22.8.2008,
the assessee was asked to furnish photocopies of bills of additions to
fixed assets above Rs. 20,000/-. Such details were partly furnished by
the assessee. It was observed that no copies of bills of assets purchased,
tabulated on last page of the assessment order, were furnished on which
depreciation of Rs.1,06,436/- was claimed. The Assessing Officer
                                      20                    ITA No. 2620/Del/2010
                                                            Lifeline Biotech Limited

disallowed depreciation to this extent. The ld. CIT(A), on appreciation
of the details adduced before him for the first time, deleted the addition.


18.2.      After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant
material on record, we find that the facts and circumstances of this
ground are mutatis mutandis similar to the grounds discussed above.
Following the view taken above on such other grounds, we set aside the
impugned order and send the matter back to the file of AO for deciding
this issue afresh in the light of material already filed or to be filed by the
assessee in support of the claim of deduction on account of depreciation.


19. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 8/9/2014.




                     Sd/-                                    Sd/-
      (A. T. Varkey)                                (R. S. Syal)
    JUDICIAL MEMBER                            ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 8/9/2014
*Subodh*

Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5.DR: ITAT
                                                    ASSISTANT 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 - Privacy Policy

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