ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. KAIZEN ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

PAN/GIR No. AADCK 1418 N (Appellant) : (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Gurbinder Singh : Shri Madhur Agrawal Assessee by Date of Hearing : 09.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 09.11.2020 O R D E R Per Bench:

This appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 17.01.2019 and pertains to the assessment year (A.Y.) 2010- 11.

Revenue’s appeal:

2 & CO No. 35/Mum/2020 M/s. Kaizen Engineering Systems Pvt. Ltd. 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CTT (A) has erred in restricting the addition to 5% instead of 100% being Rs.40,43,025/- made by the AO u/s.69C of the Act out of the bogus purchase transaction accommodation entry obtained by assessee though Id.CIT(A) himself at para 4.6 of the appellate order held on verification of computer block affixed asset schedule that the said block does not show any addition of Rs.11,25,311/- hence even rejecting the assessee's claim of this expenditure being capital in nature". 3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition u/s.69C by holding that opportunity of cross-examination is not provided to the assessee ignoring the fact that at para 4.2 of the assessment order the AO has categorically mentioned that further to the non service of notice issued u/s. 133(6) by postal authority, the assessee was also asked to produce party for verification which the assessee did not comply and therefore, Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the onus to prove genuineness is not discharged by assessee." 3.1 "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CTT(A) has erred in deleting the addition u/s. 68 of the Act in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T.Rules, by not remanding the AO to afford opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee." 3.2 “Ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition u/s.68 of the Ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) disregarding the Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CJT-H vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd, 375 ITR 373 (Delhi) wherein Hon’ble Court while remanding the matter held that two appellate authorities viz., Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal, are also forums for fact-finding, in event of Assessing Officer failing to discharge his functions properly, obligation to conduct proper inquiry on facts would naturally shift to door of said appellate authorities and they having noticed want of proper inquiry, cannot close chapter simply by allowing appeal and deletion additions made.”