9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... available before the Assessing Officer. The ld. Assessing Officer has also made discussion about other disallowances in the assessment order along with other details and computation of total income as is evident from page-6 of the assessment order. Assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, therefore, we allow the appeal of the assessee - ITA No. 4498/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 18-5-2015 - Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) And N. K. Billaiya (Accountant Member) For the Assessee : Dr. K. Shivram, Rahul Sarda For the Revenue : R. R. Prasad-DR ORDER Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25/04/2013, of the ld. Commissioner of In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, we note that the assessee declared income of ₹ 47,95,692/- in its return filed on 25/09/2009, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS, therefore, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with detailed questionnaires were served upon the assessee. The assessee attended the proceedings from time to time and filed various details called for and the case was discussed with the assessee as is evident from page 1 onwards of the assessment order itself. In the assessment order, we find that the facts have been elaborated as the assessee under took three projects namely (a) Agarwal Trinity Tower at Orlem Church at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the ld. Assessing Officer has made an elaborate discussion of facts by placing reliance upon various decisions of higher authorities. We note that the ld. Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible view, more specifically, when the Tribunal upheld the decision of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) holding the assessee as a joint developer along with M/s Dhruv Construction. No appeal was filed by the Department against the decision of the Tribunal. Even, no contrary decision has been mentioned more specifically when the assessment was framed, the decision from a higher forum was available before the Assessing Officer. The ld. Assessing Officer has also made discussion about other disallowances in the assessment order alon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment order with respect to correctness of method of accounting and assessment was passed without due enquires, we note that rather necessary details called for, due discussion was made and the facts were duly scrutinize, thus, the ratio laid down by Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in Idea Cellular Ltd. vs DCIT Ors. (2008) 301 ITR 407 (Bom.) and CIT vs Fine Jewellery (India) ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Relevant page 307) to the fact that mere non-mention of an issue in assessment order after calling for details does not mean lack of enquiry if the details were called for and examined. We find that before the assessment order was passed the ld. Assessing Officer made a detailed enquiry and on being satisfied with the explanation offered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
