2019 (6) TMI 597 - AT - Income Tax

Additions in respect of sale of property, discount, development expenditure, commission paid and deleted the addition made u/s.14A - HELD THAT - The contention that profit arising on account of sale of property cannot be brought to tax as the land was sold in the capacity of holding power of attorney cannot be accepted, since the profits were assessed under the head profit and gain of business . As regards to the allowances of discount, commission and development expenditure, no evidence were filed before us establishing the genuineness of the expenditure. Mere entries in the books of accounts does not establish the genuineness of the expenditure. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(Appeals). The grounds of appeal are dismissed against the appellant.

Issues:
1. Assessment Year 2013-2014 - Appeal against CIT(A) order.
2. Principles of Consistency.
3. Principles of Equity and Natural Justice.
4. Established canons of Law.
5. Treatment of capital gains.
6. Disputed net profit.
7. Tax liability deletion for being a POA Holder.
8. Disallowances to be voided.
9. Profit from property sale.
10. Deduction claims for discount, commission, and development expenditure.
11. Addition u/s. 14A of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the CIT(A) order for Assessment Year 2013-2014. The appellant raised grounds related to Principles of Consistency, Equity, Natural Justice, and Established Canons of Law. The appellant argued for the same approach as in the previous assessment year regarding capital gains treatment, disputing deviations made by the authorities.

2. The appellant contended that the CIT(A) order was against the Principles of Consistency, Equity, and Natural Justice. The appellant highlighted discrepancies in the assessment process and treatment of capital gains, urging for the order to be set aside based on these grounds.

3. The appellant challenged the CIT(A) order citing violations of Established Canons of Law and judicial pronouncements. The appellant emphasized the need for adherence to legal principles and precedents in the assessment process, seeking a review and annulment of the order based on these grounds.

4. The assessment involved the treatment of capital gains from a property sale. The Assessing Officer disallowed certain claims like discounts, development costs, and commission payments, leading to additions in the total income. The appellant contested these disallowances, arguing for the claims' legitimacy and disputing the additions made by the authorities.

5. The appellant disputed the net profit assessment, presenting conflicting figures regarding the Proforma Land Account and transactions related to POA Land business. The appellant claimed a net loss instead of profit, contesting the authorities' assessment and highlighting discrepancies in the calculations.

6. The appellant sought deletion of tax liability based on being a POA Holder, arguing for consistency in treatment across assessment years. The appellant emphasized similarities in situations between different assessment years and urged for the tax liability deletion based on these grounds.

7. The appellant contested various disallowances related to discounts, commission, and development costs, arguing that the transactions were outside the tax ambit. The appellant sought the complete voiding of these disallowances, presenting justifications for the claims and urging for their deletion in entirety.

8. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A) order. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's arguments regarding the treatment of profits from property sale and the legitimacy of deduction claims for discount, commission, and development expenditure. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A) order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

← Previous Next →