Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the ld.

CIT(A)-1, Jaipur dated 15-01-2016 for the assessment year 2008-09 raising therein following grounds:-

''1. The ld. CIT(A)-1, Jaipur has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the reassessment proceedings which were solely based on audit para Devendra Kumar Jain vs. ITO Ward- 3 (1), Jaipur .

2. Without prejudice to above, the ld. CIT(A)-1,Jaipur has further erred in sustaining the following additions additional evidence in reassessment proceedings:-

3.1.2 (i) I have duly considered the submissions of the appellant, assessment order and the material placed on record. The appellant is engaged in the business of transportation of goods using own truck as well as hired trucks and other heavy goods vehicles owned by others. The original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 25-10-

2010 determining total income of Rs. 5,07,380/ against returned income of Rs. 4,07,380/-. Subsequently, the case of Devendra Kumar Jain vs. ITO Ward- 3 (1), Jaipur .

(vi) In view of the above discussion and looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the AO was justified in reopening the case of the Devendra Kumar Jain vs. ITO Ward- 3 (1), Jaipur .

appellant u/s 147 of the Act. Therefore, this ground of appeal is rejected.

3.2 I have heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record including the written submission filed by the ld. AR of the assessee. From the perusal of the figures of the Profit & Loss Account, the amount of Trailer Rent of Rs. 3,60,000/- was shown as in independent item of expense. Further this amount was also shown in the Tax Audit Report as payments to specified persons u/s 40A(2)(b). Thus, it could not be presumed that the AO had not verified the expense about its allowability or otherwise as stated by the ld. CIT(A). The AO is not supposed to make all that as part of the assessment order. He is supposed to make the enquiries to be part of assessment order where he is not satisfied and where he holds different views. The decision of the ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Arvind Bhartiya Vidhyalaya Samti vs. ITO [XXXII Tax World 155 (2004) relied on by the assessee is squarely fit to the present case wherein the Hon'ble bench held as such. The copies of documents submitted in the form of Paper Book further reveals that the case was reopened solely on the basis of the major audit para. This indicates that there was no application of mind by the AO as provided in section 147 of the Act . The ld. AR of the assessee relied on various case Devendra Kumar Jain vs. ITO Ward- 3 (1), Jaipur .

(iii) It was the contention of the appellant that at the original assessment stage, the original form 15-I were produced before the AO and being fully satisfied, the AO did not draw any adverse inference, however, the appellant failed to substantiate its contention with any evidence. During appellate proceedings, the A.R. was required to file the evidence when the Form No.15-I was issued by Shri Arihant Jain were filed with the prescribed authority, however, the same was not furnished and it was submitted Devendra Kumar Jain vs. ITO Ward- 3 (1), Jaipur .