GURCHARAN SINGH BHATIA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-50(1), NEW DELHI

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

“1. The order passed by ACIT and sustained by CIT was against the facts of the case and bad in law. 2. CIT [A] erred to sustain addition of Rs.309000/- expenses which were not claimed by assessee in p&l account. 3. The CIT[A] did not adjudicate ground no 3 i.e. "The JCIT erred by giving directions U/S 144A first proviso to give any directions which were prejudicial to assessee without affording any opportunity and consequent following of such direction by AO as those were in defiance of provisions of section 144A,therefore, addition of Rs.3959000 /- on disallowance of expenses was against the principles of natural justice i.e. without providing any opportunity, deserves to be deleted."

4. The CIT[A] erred in law and in the circumstances of the case to sustain addition of an amount of Rs. 2500000/- &[ Rs.309000/-(not claimed as expense)] and paid to CPL auto and by ignoring statement recorded u/s 131 & Rs. 250000 paid to ARTI JAIN as business promotion expenses and Rs.650000 paid to Barkha jain,& Rs. 250000 paid to Subhash Kausal. as selling and marketing expenses without considering that expenses were incurred for the purpose of the business and without providing proper opportunity, and against the facts and evidences on record.”