9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against the orders of the CIT(A), Vijayawada dated 27/02/2013 for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The grievance of the Revenue in this appeal is against the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 38,40,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are during the course of survey conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 19/02/2009, certain incriminating material was found and impounded. Subsequently, assessee filed a revised return offering additional income of Rs. 10 lakhs and admitting the net income at Rs. 4,50,870/-. During the course of scrutiny, on verification of impounded material, the Assessing Officer had noticed that the partne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 292C of the I.T. Act in respect of the books of account impounded during the course of survey u/s.133A of the I.T. Act. The CIT(A) held that that the subject transaction does not yield to any income chargeable to Income tax. However, as submitted by the Assessing Officer, the assessee also has not conclusively proved that the cost of acquisition of land is Rs.10,00,000/- per acre except relying on the books of account. Considering the facts and circumstances, the CIT(A) was of the opinion that the transaction affects only the work- in-progress. Therefore, he directed the AO to reduce the work-in- progress to be carried forward by an amount of Rs.38.40 lakhs. 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. Before us, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r books i.e. Rs. 40 lakhs and as per the registered document i.e. Rs. 1.60 lakhs amounting to Rs. 38.40 lakhs was disallowed by the AO from the expenditure incurred by the assessee and added back as undisclosed income. Referring to the assessee's contention that the addition was not made u/s 68 or 69 of the IT Act and as there were no sales in the year under consideration the difference, at best, has to be reduced from working progress and cannot be added to the income returned by the assessee, the learned DR submitted that the argument of assessee is not tenable since as per the assessment order it is clear that that the Assessing Officer has brought the difference in cost of the lands purchased to tax and the addition made was not on acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
