9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The C.I.T.(Appeals) failed to appreciate that in completed assessment of Asst. Year 1983-84 the assessee was taxed on financial year basis. 4 The C.I.T.(Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer himself has conceded before his predecessor in office at the lime of first appeal that the assessment which was set aside was an over-pitched assessment. 5. The C.1,T.(Appeals) erred in upholding the estimation of cash receipts from cellar and ground floor at ₹ 11,60,658/- and ₹ 30,76,009/-respectively and the cheque receipt at ₹ 7,34,918/- and ₹ 20,78,916/- respectively. 6. The C.I.T.(Appeals) erred in upholding the decision of the Assessing Officer whereby he applied the gross profit rate of 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on business. Asst. Year 1987-88 1. The C.I.T.(Appeals) erred in holding that section 147-148 notice and assessment were valid in law. 2. The CT.T.(Appeals} erred in upholding that the Assessing Officer was justified in law in resorting to section 154 while making assessment. 3. The C.LT.(Appeals) erred in upholding the receipt of estimated sale consideration of ₹ 35 lakhs for first to fourth floor against the agreement of sale for ₹ 14 lakhs for the entire project and Rs,8,25,000/- of actual receipt on sale of the project on as is where is basis. 4. The CJ.T.(Appeals) erred in upholding the estimate of alleged receipt of on-money in respect of first to fourth floors on the basis of the alleged receipt thereof on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The C.IT.(Appeals) erred in upholding the decision of the Assessing Officer of charging 215 interest of ₹ 3,89,775/- in spite of the fact that there was no mention thereof in the assessment order. 13. The C.I.T.(Appeals) ought to have held that 147 action and order were without jurisdiction and if the original assessment was an over-pitched assessment even according to the Assessing Officer who appeared before the then C.I.T.(Appeals), this was more so. 2. During the course of hearing ld. AR submitted that he does not press grounds relating to reopening of assessment and grounds relating to charging of interest etc. except the working of profit on cash portion. For Asst. Year 1985-86 3. The facts of the case are that a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the receipts as under :- Cellar Ground floor Total Cheque amount 7,34,958/- 20,78,916/- 28,13,874/- Cash amount 11,60,658/- 30,76,009/- 42,36,667/- The AO applied GP rate of 10% on cheque amount but taxed entire sum of ₹ 42,36,667/- being on money received in cash. 4. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that assessee is liable to be taxed for entire sum received in cash. According to him all the expenses are accounted for in the books of account of the firm. According to ld. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered view it will not be proper to tax entire sum of on money received in cash as income of the assessee. It is apparent that a parallel account of receipt and expenditure is maintained which is not recorded in the books i.e. both the payments and receipts are in cash. It is not correct to presume that assessee has not incurred any expenditure out of cash amount. For getting clearance for the project assessee has to incur expenses in entertainment. It has to incur cash for getting vacant possession of the premises. Cash is also incurred for making labour payments and payments for purchasing raw materials. However, assessee saves substantial money as taxes etc. which are not paid on such on money . Most of the expenditure are accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
