9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is time barred by 286 days. The assessee has inadvertently caused delay of 288 days and the learned D.R. objected to the reasons stated in the affidavit for condonation of delay stating that the same Advocate has appeared throughout i.e., in the assessment as well as the first appellate proceedings. As the Order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax has been passed on 27.3.2003 directing the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment by making additions the benefit of doubt shall be given to the learned Counsel for the assessee for not filing the appeal against the Order under section 263 and waiting for the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment as per the direction of the Commissioner of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned CIT(A) held that there is an item on liabilities side described as 'net advances' received of Rs.7,59,943/-. The Assessing Officer ought to have examined this point as well as genuineness of claim of unsecured loans. 5. In ITA.No.340/Hyd/2009 against the Order of Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad under section 263 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before us. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the land at Badangipet and Gurramguda are not even sold at the same rate. However, so far as the land at Gurramguda is concerned, it was stated by the assessee in a state of confusion at the time of recording statement that the sale of plots was at Rs.250/- per sq. yard. 6. Further, the learned Counsel submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.2003 was very nominal and the Assessing Officer can consider only the amounts spent as on 31.3.2003 and not the amounts which were spent later. Therefore, it was pleaded that the difference in closing stock arrived by the Assessing Officer at Rs.13,18,478/- is not justified. 9. We have heard both the parties. With respect to ground No.1, it is general in nature and therefore, needs no adjudication. With respect to ground No.2 and 3, the net estimate in the sale consideration of the plots determined by the Commissioner of Income Tax was at Rs.8,12,000/- is to be examined by the Assessing Officer. The plea of the assessee and the arguments made by him that in a confused state of mind, he had accepted the sale of plot at Gurramguda at Rs.25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Income Tax held that an amount of Rs.7,89,943/- received as advance found in the balance sheet as on 31.3.2003 is to be included as the income of the assessee. We find that during the A.Y. 2004-2005, the assessee sold parts of land at Rs.17,85,600/- and income of Rs.4,01,760/- was offered. The assessee has admitted the advances received during the year at Rs.7,59,943/- has revenue receipts for the immediately succeeding year. Therefore, the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax are not justified in treating the amount of Rs.7,59,943/- as the income of the assessee. 12. ITA.No.340/Hyd/2009 - A.Y. 2003-2004 : Since the assessee's appeal Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under section 263 of the Act has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
