9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1025X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 69 of the IT Act of 1961 erred in giving the following finding/direction which is not necessary for the disposal of the appeal and is therefore to be deleted. i. The order of the CIT(A) in giving a finding/direction that the allowance of expenditure as cost of acquisition development can be taken up as and when the lands are sold in a finding direction not necessary for the disposal of the appeal and therefore, is to be de deleted. ii. The direction of the CIT(A) at paragraph 6.4 of his order directing the appellant to file complete details of the expenses and supporting evidences to the notice of the Appellate Authority by 15th February 2014 in a finding which is not necessary for the disposal of the appeal and therefore to be deleted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... '. ii) The Assessing Officer, having noticed the increase in the addition to the assets as obtaining from the audited financial statements, should have also realised that this is in fact a confirmation of recording of assets in books and hence is not an unexplained investment. iii) The Assessing Officer should have realised that it is not an expenditure debited to the P & L acct and claimed as an expenditure, for it to be disallowed. iv) A debit in the asset account of the books does not constitute income. 4. The learned CIT(A) found merit in the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and held that the addition to the fixed assets representing development expenditure could not be treated as unexplained, as the same was extracted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 14.8.2014 passed in ITA Nos.895, 896 and 198/Hyd/2014- "8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and pursed the record. Admittedly, assessees have made investments in fixed assets and the source of such investments was the inflow available on the Liability Side of the Balance Sheet. Since the Assessing Officer has not properly appreciated the facts, before the learned CIT(A), the source was explained, and the same was accepted by the learned CIT(A). Having accepted the source of funds, there cannot be any addition made in this year and even in the subsequent year, i.e. in the year of sale, the source of investment cannot be disputed. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) is not justified in giving direction to the Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
