| |
The Tax PublishersITA No. 960/JP/2017, ITA No. 155/JP/2018
2020 TaxPub(DT) 1104 (Jp-Trib)INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 143(3)
Since notice of demand were issued without jurisdiction and authority of law because concerned officer, ITO(TDS) had no jurisdiction whatsoever at that relevant point of time to issue such notices, therefore, such notices were accordingly quashed and set aside.
|
Assessment - Validity of additions made - Ad hoc addition for service charges receipts and ad hoc disallowance of vehicle and telephone expenses on estimated basis -
Grievance of assessee was related to ad hoc addition on account of service charges receipts and ad hoc disallowance of vehicle and telephone expenses on estimated basis without giving any reasonable justification for the same. Held: No basis was given by any of lower authorities for making ad hoc addition on account of service charges income. Even during course of scrutiny assessment, no defect was pointed out by AO in books of account nor the same were rejected. In absence of any specific defect or discrepancy, no valid addition could be made. In instant case, Authorities Below failed to point out any specific instance of suppression of service income, or any discrepancy or mistake in any manner. Under these circumstances, no such addition was legally maintainable.
Followed:Mysore Fertiliser Co. v. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 268 (Mad) : 1966 TaxPub(DT) 0117 (Mad-HC); Raj Enterprises. v. ITO. (1995) 51 TTJ 408 (JP) : 1995 TaxPub(DT) 0840 (Jp-Trib); Sargam Cinema v. CIT (2011) 197 Taxman 203 (SC) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 0893 (SC)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. :
IN THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|