9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such power is conferred u/s 69C to such AO - Section 69C is not attracted to this case - The proviso to Section 69C is confined to Section 69C only - No such proviso is found in Section 69C and therefore, the proviso to Section 69C cannot be read as proviso to Section 69B - In terms of Section 69B, the excess amount may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year - when the excess amount is in the nature of the investment on building and the building is sold to prospective purchaser, that investment is in the nature of expenditure – that unexplained income has to be set off against the expenditure and the net tax could be 'nil' and that the Appellate Authorities dismissed both the appeals and held that it is strictly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eral grounds. The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the assessee had suppressed the investment in the building construction and went ahead to make addition of ₹ 41,33,983/- being the difference in the cost of construction of the building as determined by the DVO and the cause shown by the assessee in its books. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The 1st appellate authority accepted the said valuation and held, the said difference in the amount is to be allowed as deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act and as such, it has no impact on the income of the assessee. Hence, the Assessing officer was directed to allow the deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act equal to the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order, contended that in view of proviso to Section 69C, the unexplained expenditure which is deemed to be the income of the assessee shall not be allowed as deduction under any head of income. That proviso equally applies to Section 69-B and therefore, the finding of the appellate authorities allowing the unexplained expenditure as a deduction is erroneous and requires to be interfered with. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the assessee submitted, the proviso to Section 69C has to be confined to Section 69C only and it has no application to Section 69B and therefore, he submits that there is no substance in the said finding. 9. As the Assessing Officer invoked Section 142-A of the Act and got DVO appointed for the purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
