9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 602 - AT - Income TaxAddition on refund of money - Held that - The issue about the refund of money to two parties had attained finality during the first round of litigation. From the order of the Tribunal also,it is evident that the order of the FAA was not challenged by the AO with regard this issue.In these circumstances, addition made by the AO and confirmed by the FAA is held be to unjustified. Reversing the order of the FAA pertaining to the issue under consideration, we decide ground no.1 in favour of the assessee. Deduction being compensation paid on surrender of flats - CIT(A) directed AO to treat the compensation paid to various persons as cost of the project,the profits in respect of which have been assessed in the year under consideration - Held that - No infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). We find the CIT(A) while directing the Assessing Officer to treat the compensation paid to various persons as the cost of the project has called for the remand report and after considering the same has passed an elaborate order on this issue.The learned DR could not controvert the above factual findings given by the CIT(A). We find the only grievance of the Revenue is that the original agreements or confirmations from the parties to whom the compensation for surrendering of incomplete flats has been paid were not furnished for which it was not possible on the part of the Assessing Officer to verify the genuineness. However, we find the assessee has produced the copies of the bank account and the copies of agreements, etc., before the Assessing Officer. Further the assessee by cancelling the agreements has paid compensation of ₹ 3,67,95,990 and by reselling the flats has received an amount of ₹ 7,03,66,767 which has been disclosed as the receipts and which is much higher than the compensation so paid. In this view of the matter and in view of the detailed discussion by the CIT(A)in his order on this issue, we do not find any infirmity in the same and accordingly, the same is upheld.The FAA had, in the first round,deleted the addition made by the AO,then there was no justification on his part in upholding the same in the second round especially after the order of the Tribunal.Therefore, reversing the order of the FAA on the issue and following the earlier order of the ITAT, we decide ground no.2 in favour of the assessee. Deduction being the expenditure incurred by the appellant in the subsequent years in relation to income assessed for the AY.under consideration - Held that - Powers of the Assessing Officer during the remand proceedings are limited, Since there is already variation between the figures given before the Assessing Officer and before the CIT(A),therefore, we in the interest of justice, deem,it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate with evidence to his satisfaction that it has incurred expenditure of ₹ 3,45,69,104 towards cost of the project and which is not in the nature of repairs. As during the first round of hearing the FAA had admitted additional evidence and had called for a remand report from the AO, that he had forwarded the paper submitted before him to the AO, that the AO had submitted the report and had stated that it was difficult to comment upon the admissibility of additional evidences.Thus,the existence of Remand report is proved. If the assessee had supplied all the papers during the first round of litigation and had requested the AO to refer to the order of the then FAA the AO should have considered the documents.We are unable to understand as to how the AO and the FAA had determined the income of the assessee again at ₹ 5.77 Crores especially when the Tribunal had allowed relief to the assessee.It is true that the assessee had not appeared before the AO,but the FAA had all the documents to decide the case on merits.But,he confirmed the order of the AO. Considering the peculiar facts of the case,we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.He would afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee,after considering the documentary evidences admitted by the FAA during the first round of litigation. The assessee is directed to appear before the AO and to extend full cooperation. - Decided in favour of revenue by way of remand. Double taxation - AR contended that disputed amount did not pertain to the year under appeal,that it was already assessed in the year 1999-2000, that same amount has been added twice - The DR also agreed that any item of income cannot be taxed twice - Held that - The assessee has claimed that the amount in question does not pertain to the year under appeal,therefore the AO is directed to verify the fact and delete it from the computation for the year under consideration,if same has been taxed during the AY.19992000. - Decided in favour of assessee by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of Rs. 1,700,000 refunded to Shri C.J. Patel and M/s Aryan International Transport. 2. Deduction of Rs. 36,695,990 as compensation paid on surrender of flats. 3. Deduction of Rs. 29,480,530 as expenditure incurred in subsequent years related to income assessed for AY 1999-2000. 4. Deletion of Rs. 21,903,394 as double assessment of income for AY 2002-03. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction of Rs. 1,700,000 Refunded to Shri C.J. Patel and M/s Aryan International Transport: The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,700,000 refunded to Shri C.J. Patel and M/s Aryan International Transport, which was disallowed by the AO during the original assessment. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) had initially deleted this addition, and the AO did not challenge this decision. The Tribunal found that the issue had attained finality during the first round of litigation and reversing the FAA's order, decided this ground in favor of the assessee, stating that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the FAA was unjustified. 2. Deduction of Rs. 36,695,990 as Compensation Paid on Surrender of Flats: The assessee sought a deduction for compensation paid on the surrender of flats, which was initially allowed by the FAA but contested by the AO. The Tribunal had previously decided in favor of the assessee, directing that the compensation paid should be treated as part of the project cost. Despite this, the AO and FAA upheld the addition in the second round. The Tribunal reiterated that the issue had been settled in the first round and should not have been revived. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the FAA's order and upheld the earlier decision, allowing the deduction. 3. Deduction of Rs. 29,480,530 as Expenditure Incurred in Subsequent Years Related to Income Assessed for AY 1999-2000: The assessee claimed that it had incurred expenditure in subsequent years related to the project income assessed for AY 1999-2000. Initially, the FAA admitted additional evidence and apportioned the expenses towards the cost of the project. However, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO, in the second round, found that the assessee failed to provide necessary evidence. The Tribunal, upon reviewing submissions, noted the existence of a remand report and directed the AO to reconsider the documentary evidence admitted during the first round. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, with directions to afford a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 4. Deletion of Rs. 21,903,394 as Double Assessment of Income for AY 2002-03: The assessee contended that the amount of Rs. 21,903,394 was already assessed in AY 1999-2000 and should not be taxed again in AY 2002-03. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the amount had indeed been taxed in AY 1999-2000 and, if so, to delete it from the computation for AY 2002-03. This ground was allowed in favor of the assessee, in part. Conclusion: The appeals filed by the assessee for both assessment years were allowed. The Tribunal provided detailed directions for the AO to reconsider specific deductions and verify the claims made by the assessee, ensuring that no income is taxed twice and that all relevant expenses are appropriately accounted for in the correct assessment years. The Tribunal emphasized the principles of taxation jurisprudence, ensuring that issues settled in previous rounds of litigation should not be revived without substantial cause.
|
