9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess of building construction. Assessee filed its original return of income for A.Y. 2003-04 on 30.11.2003 declaring total income of Rs. 22,12,489/-.Thereafter the case was re-opened and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 25.02.2010 and thereafter assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 vide order dated 29.10.2010 and the total income was determined at Rs. 36,07,010/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O., Assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 25.10.2011 granted substantial relief to the Assessee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of ld. CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us and has raised the following effective ground:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-IV, S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the manner laid down in Chapter IV-D. He was of the view that the undisclosed income which has been declared by the Assessee is not income from business as envisaged in Chapter IV-D of the Act and therefore the remuneration to the partners which is claimed by the Assessee on the "undisclosed income" was not correct. He accordingly worked out the excess remuneration of Rs. 13,94,516/- which according to him was not allowable and accordingly made its addition. Aggrieved by the order of A.O., Assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition by holding as under:- 3. Ground No.3 is against the A.O. re-computing the deduction u/s. 40(b). There was a survey in the case of the assessee when a voluntary disclosure of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect surveyed by the Department. It was submitted that in the statement recorded by the Officers of the Department that the "firm" was disclosing income from the "said project" and it had been included in the P&L account and formed part of book profits of the assessee. The appellant also relied on a number of decisions including the Jurisdictional ITAT in the case of Virat Gems in ITA No.3541 and 3756/Ahd/2008 dated 19.11.2010. 3.2 I have gone through the facts of the case. The A.O. did not consider the income disclosed during survey for computation of deduction in respect of partner's remuneration u/s. 40(b) as according to him the source of this income was not established to be business. This conclusion of the A.O., I am afraid, can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is about the addition made in respect of partners remuneration u/s. 40b of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that during the course of survey, Assessee had disclosed Rs. 35 lacs as unaccounted income. We find that ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition has noted that Assessee had only one source of income being construction activity and in the statement recorded during the course of survey, it was categorical mentioned that the income was from construction project, it was disclosed in the Profit and Loss account of the firm and was offered to tax and the quantum of income disclosed has been accepted by Revenue. We find that the Co-ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
