{"id":19169,"date":"2021-06-09T12:41:25","date_gmt":"2021-06-09T07:11:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/kandan-kannan-medical-agency-v-ito-2020-269-taxman-291-mad-hc\/"},"modified":"2021-06-09T12:41:25","modified_gmt":"2021-06-09T07:11:25","slug":"kandan-kannan-medical-agency-v-ito-2020-269-taxman-291-mad-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/kandan-kannan-medical-agency-v-ito-2020-269-taxman-291-mad-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Kandan &#038; Kannan Medical Agency v. ITO (2020) 269 Taxman 291 (Mad.)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Assessee was engaged in business of wholesale and retail sale of veterinary medicines as a partnership firm.\u00a0 In respect of relevant year, returns were not filed in time due to certain disputes\/differences between partners. Assessing officer issued a notice under section 142(1) calling upon assessee to file return of income.\u00a0 By time return of income was filed, Assessing Officer proceeded to complete assessment under section 144 in which he made two additions i.e. firstly under section 69A and, secondly, in respect of enhanced rate of profit on turnover.\u00a0 The petitioner filed writ petition against the said order.\u00a0\u00a0 Allowing the petition the Court held that in show cause notice issued under section 142(1), Assessing officer raised issue only in respect of first issue i.e. addition under section 69A, since no show cause notice was issued in respect of other issue viz, addition on account of business income, it was appropriate to remit matter back to Assessing Officer for redoing assessment after getting a reply from assessee in respect of both issues Matter remanded. (AY.\u00a0 2017-18)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 144 : Best judgment assessment-Assessing Officer has made addition on account of two grounds-Show cause notice u\/s 142 (1)   was in respect of only one ground-Order set aside and reamended back for redoing the assessment. [S. 69A, 142(1), Art. 226] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19169","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-4Zb","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19169","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19169"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19169\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19170,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19169\/revisions\/19170"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19169"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19169"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19169"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}