9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kandivali (East), Mumbai 400 101, solemnly affirms on oath as under:- I, That a copy of an order dated 29th March 2012 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Mumbai for income tax assessment year 2008-09 was affixed on the outside of my premises at 4/153, Yoganand Society, Lokmanya Tilak Road, Vazira Naka, Borivali {W}, Mumbai 400 092 on 3rd May 2012, at which time I was not present in the said premises. I was incidentally residing at I-C, Viceroy Court, Thakur Village, Kandivali (E), Mumbai 400 101. 1. When the news of this affixture was learnt from my neighbours, the affixed order was collected by my employee within a span of two days or so. 2 That an appeal against this order was required to be filed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai within sixty days of receipt of the order and the said appeal is now being filed in the month of May 2013 along with an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal In support of this application, this affidavit is being made explaining the circumstances in which the filing of the appeal was delayed. 3. That I am a proprietor of a business concern called PRS Enterprise. Sometime in June 2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lucrative businesses in my hand that I dreamt about, I got saddled with liabilities and commitments which I find difficult to discharge. was also left with no reliable source of income to sustain my family and meet the liabilities. 8. To add to my misfortunes, due to my exposure to some family business entities and also more particularly due to complaints filed by my enemies in my adverse business times, 1 got entangled into needless litigations with government agencies more particularly the Enforcement Directorate and the Crime Branch. The litigations, prompted by my enemies, acquired disproportionate publicity from the media more particularly when my brother, an ex-Deputy Collector, Shri Nitesh Thakur's name came to be mentioned in the cases where corruption with government agencies was alleged by the Anti Corruption Bureau. Because of these litigations, I have to constantly run pillar to post in New Delhi & Mumbai right from 2011 onwards in order to attend these legal proceedings even at the short notices. 9. That because of these development, my family relations with my brother got strained beyond repair and we parted with serious differences, which are unresolv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has also treated the entire advances totalling Rs. 3 1,67,50,000 received by ne from S.D. Corporation to me towards my fees as my taxable income without allowing any deduction for expenditure contractually required to be borne by me My properties have been attached by the Income Tax Department in recovery proceedings in respect of the tax demand for this year. This has added to my woes and mental distress. 11. That for the financial year ended 3 1-3-2009, i.e. Assessment Year 2009-10, 1 state that the income tax department had passed an order on 28-12-2011 assessing me at an income of Rs. 99,89,57,370 and raised a demand of Rs. 48,87,5 1,210. In this assessment order, Assessing Officer has treated the advances totalling Rs. 4 1,00,00,000 received by me from Shapoorji Pallonji and Co as my taxable income disregarding the fact that these amounts do not belong to me but have been given to me by the company to acquire properties on its behalf. In fact, these advances form the very subject matter of the amounts decreed by Bombay High Court in the consent decree to be returned by me to this company. In the assessment order, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e I had lost my professional association with my previous chartered accountants (who maintained my file and papers), I began to attend the appeal proceedings personally and alone without any papers on hand. At that time, I learnt that as per income tax department's records, I had not filed any appeal to the Tribunal against the Commissioner {Appeals}'s order for the prior year i.e. Assessment Year 2008-09. Immediately thereafter, I searched my residence for papers and I was shocked to find in one of my cupboards the original copy of the Commissioner {Appeals}'s order for Assessment Year carrying an endorsement that the same had been affixed outside my premises at my premises at 4/153. Yoganand Society, Lokmanya Tilak Road, Vazira Naka, Borivali {W}, Mumbai 40092 on 3rd May 2012. To my anxiety, when I did not find any appeal papers filed against this order, I inquired with my family members and found that none of them recollect instructing my previous chartered accountants about this order. 15. I sought professional advice and was instructed that for filing an appeal with the Tribunal, along with the copy of the Commissioner {Appeals}'s order, one will have to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication in order to refer to the same at the time of hearing of the appeal by the Tribunal. 18. That I made repeated visits to the office of the Commissioner {Appeals} -35 for this purpose. But, I was informed that that the service of the order by affixture was done by the office of the Assessing Officer in this regard and that the concerned file contains the copies of the records sought by me had been sent to the Office of the Concerned Commissioner/ Chief Commissioner in charge. 19. At as on date, I have not received the copies of the documents sought by me from the office of Commissioner {Appeals}-35 . I have therefore decided to file my belated appeal to the Tribunal without any further delay along with letter of condonation of delay based on the facts and circumstances averred in this affidavit. 20. That despite all my adverse circumstances, I have been duly compliant in attending to all income tax proceedings including recovery and appellate proceedings. In the coths. of my appellate proceedings before the Commissioner {Appeals}-35 for Assessment Year 208-09, I have even offered to have my business income determined on any reasonable estimated basis in absence of pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel further stated that there was tremendous pressure on the assessee because of his personal problems narrated in the affidavit, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal may be condoned and admit the appeal for hearing. In this regard, the assessee has relied upon a plethora of case laws, including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs MST Kattiji & Ors 167 ITR 471 (SC). 6. On the other hand, the Ld.DR strongly opposed the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Ld.DR further submitted that there is an inordinate delay of 312 days in filing the appeal which has not been explained by the assessee with necessary evidence. No doubt, the Courts are empowered to condone the delay in filing the appeal. But it is incumbent upon the assessee to explain the reasons for delay in filing the appeal beyond doubt. In this case, the reasons given by the assessee for condoning the delay in filing the appeal appears to be not a reasonable cause. Therefore, the petition filed by the assessee for condoning the delay shall not be admitted. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e out of various additions made by the AO. If the assessee could not file the appeal and prosecute the appeal before appellate authorities assessee was himself put under tremendous trouble. Therefore, we do not see any purported reasons for not filing the appeal in time. We further observe that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs MST Kattiji & Ors (supra) laid down six principles while condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court are as follows:_ "(1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. (2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would he decided on merits after hearing the parties. (3) Every day's delay must he explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should he made. Why not every hour's delay, every seconds delay? The doctrine must he applied in a rational. common sense and pragmatic manner. (4) When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... \s 28 (iv). 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner {Appeals} erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3 1,67,50,000 made by the learned Assessing Officer as income from other sources in respect of consultancy charges received from S.D. Corporation Ltd. The learned Commissioner {Appeals} here failed to appreciate that - [a] the income from the consultancy work was chargeable to tax under the head 'profits & gains from business or profession' and not 'income from other sources' [b] based on the nature of the Appellant's work and the method of accounting employed by him, the consultancy charges of Rs. 31,67,50,000 were not chargeable to tax in the year under appeal and [c] without prejudice to the above, the expenses incurred by the Appellant in rendering the consultancy work require to be deducted from the said consultancy charges in the computation of his business income. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner {Appeals}also erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,00,000 made by the learned Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 in respect of the Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd a sum of Ras.31,67,50,000/- from M/s S.D. Corporation P. Ltd (SDCL). The assessee further stated that he had received advances from M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Co Ltd for procurement of land for which necessary agreement had been entered into with the company. The AO also issued notice u/s 13(6) to M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Co Ltd and SDCL calling for various details. In response to notice, M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Co Ltd (SPCL) vide their letter dated 10-11-2010 submitted that it has paid advance to Shri Nilesh J Thakur towards acquisition of land with clear and marketable title in and around Alibaug and other areas of Raigad District. SPCL stated that it has entered into an agreement with the assessee with terms and conditions for procurement of land for its project for which it has paid advance. SPCL also filed various details called for by the AO including ledger extracts of the assessee and bank statement to prove the payments. The AO, upon receiving information from SPCL called upon the assessee to furnish further evidences to justify money received from the company for procurement of land. In response to notice, assessee attended the office on 14-12-2010 and a statement on oa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any written agreement copies to state that he has been appointed as agent for SPCL for procurement of land. Therefore, he opined that the facts gathered during the course of assessment proceedings coupled with statement and other evidence filed by the assessee proves the fact that the assessee is not able to prove that he is engaged in the activity of construction of buildings and other activities. 13. The AO further observed that the assessee shown to have received Rs. 43.50 crores from SPCL during the financial year 2007-08. The said amount had been credited in the bank account maintained in the name of M/s PR Enterprises, a proprietory concern of the assessee. The same was shown as sundry creditors in the balance-sheet of the assessee. Though the assessee as well as the creditor have stated that the amount received from SPCL is towards procurement of land with clear and marketable title, the conduct of the assessee after receipt of funds from the creditor goes to prove the fact that the assessee has received amount without any consideration. The AO further observed that the assessee initially claimed to have associated with SPCL in its project, later changed his version on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, he opined that the assessee has received money from SPCL without any consideration in the nature referred to in section 56(2)(vi) of the Act. Accordingly, made addition of Rs. 43.50 crores u/s 56(2)(vi) of the Act. 15. Alternatively, the AO observed that without prejudice to above addition, even for sake of discussion, if it is presumed that the money received by the assessee represents loan, it still raises serious doubts about the genuineness of the transaction and section 68 of the Act comes into operation. Though the assessee has filed necessary evidence to prove the identity of the party, the genuineness of transaction is under serious doubt because of the conduct of the assessee as well as the creditor. Therefore, in case in appellate proceedings the assessee takes the plea that the amount represents loan, the provisions of section 68 of the IT Act, comes into operation as the genuineness of the transaction is not established as discussed above. The AO further observed that at the appellate stage, the assessee takes a plea that the amount represents business advance / loan, then with paucity of time and from the conduct of the assessee in utilizing it like his ow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts available on record, confirmed the findings of the AO to bring the impugned amount to tax u/s 56(2)(vi). The CIT(A) further observed that the reply of SPCL is also not plausible as nobody will advance such a huge sum without a written agreement. Finance against purchase of land is given to a person, who is owner of the land and not to the third party. The assessee is a novice man and has no experience in property related matters. As discussed, whereas SPCL is a corporate giant having its own machinery of legal, technical, marketing / financial departments and huge experience in dealing in property and construction activities, then a question of advancing a huge sum to the man like assessee raises serious doubts. The money received by the assessee a few years back. No settlement of the account has been done. No action for recovery has been reported by SPCL. No land has been proved to be purchased by the assessee in the name of SPCL as has been confirmed by assessee as well as SPCL. On the other hand, the assessee has purchased huge assets in his personal name and also kept money in fixed deposits at various banks. All these factors raise doubts about the genuineness of the transa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the creditor has filed suit before Bombay High Court on 06-09-2011 for recovery of the properties & FD acquired from the monies advanced to the assessee. The Bombay High Court has passed a decree on 19-10-2011 decreeing the suit on the basis of consent terms filed and on the terms and conditions stated in the court. In this regard, he filed a copy of consent decree passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Suit No.2576 of 2011. The Ld.Senior Counsel further submitted that the creditor SPCL has also filed an execution petition before Raigad Court for execution of consent decree passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. All these facts go to show that the creditor had initiated recovery proceedings on money paid to the assessee. Therefore, the lower authorities were incorrect in holding that no action has been taken to recover the amount received from the assessee. 20. The Ld.Senior Counsel further submitted that whether a particular receipt is taxable or not in the hands of the assessee has to be examined in the light of the provisions of the Act. The AO has taxed the impugned amount u/s 56(2)(vi) of the Act. The AO also discussed the issue in the light of provisions of sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n be given to the decree passed by the Bombay High Court to decide the issue. The Ld.DR further submitted that Anti Corruption authorities including ACB and ED framed the assessee along with his brother, Shri Nitesh J Thakur and in the charge sheet filed by the authorities also contains the name of the assessee. The Ld.DR further submitted that though there is no apparent conclusion drawn in the charge sheet, whether money belong to Shri Nitesh J Thakkar or the assessee, the case filed by the authorities are pending for adjudication. The Ld.DR further submitted that though the assessee claims to have received advance from SPCL for procurement of land, right from beginning, not furnished any copy of agreement entered into with the creditor which is evident from the fact that in the assessment proceedings, the assessee has categorically stated that he does not have any written agreement with SPCL. The A.O. has given number of reasons for treating impugned amount as income of the assessee and his order should be upheld. 22. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The factual matrix of the case which le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany for which the company has filed necessary details and also stated that it had paid advances to the assessee for procurement of land. The AO has recorded statement from the representative of the company u/s 131, wherein the company has categorically stated that it has paid advance for procurement of land. The company has filed copies of agreement along with board resolution copies for approving the payment of advance to the assessee for procurement of land. The assessee further contended that whether they have acted upon the terms and conditions of the agreement or not is not relevant to decide the particular receipt is taxable in the hands of the assessee or not. To tax a particular receipt as his income, it should be in the nature of income referred to under the provisions of section 56(2) or 68 or 28(iv) of the Act as discussed by the AO. The AO has taxed impugned amount on conjecture ad surmise, despite furnishing of evidences to prove that the impugned amount is merely an advance received and there is no element of income in such advances. The AO has discussed various issues to come to the conclusion that the particular receipt is in the nature of income referred to u/s 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CIT(A) that there is a nexus between the charge sheet filed by the ACB and ED in the case of assessee's brother to the amount received by the assessee. The lower authorities have not taken into account the charge sheet filed by the agencies at the time of deciding the issue. Therefore, without going into the additional details filed by the DR, we proceed to decide the issue before us in the light of the facts brought out by the Ld.AO as well as the CIT(A) in their orders. 25. The AOs case is that the assessee has received money without any consideration which is taxable under the provisions of section 56(2)(vi) of the Act. The AO has brought out number of reasons to come to the conclusion that money is taxable u/s 56(2)(vi) of the Act. The sum and substance of the findings of the AO in his order is that the assessee is not capable of doing business as stated in his statement and also does not have relevant experience in dealing in the business for which he suppose to have paid by SPCL. Though the assessee as well as the creditor has accepted that money is received towards advance for procurement of land, conduct of the assessee as well as the company goes to prove undoubted fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it has paid amount to the assessee for procurement of land in its project in Raigad district. The company also filed various details including agreement entered into with the assessee, copies of board resolutions, bank statements and its financial statement to prove that the same has been treated as advance in its books of account. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that merely because the assessee has not acted upon as per the terms and conditions of the agreement with SPCL and also the fact that the assessee has purchased properties in his personal name cannot be a sound reason for addition towards money received from SPCL; despite, both the parties have proved with necessary evidence that the impugned amount is mere advance payment for procurement of land. The AO necessarily has to examine the issue in the light of the provisions to bring to tax a particular receipt which has to be taxed. Merely on assumptions and presumptions, addition cannot be made. In this case, the assessee as well as the creditor has filed enough materials to prove that it is advance amount and the same has been treated as advance in their respective books of account; hence, we are of the conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of section 56(2)(vi). The CIT(A), without appreciating the fact has reiterated the findings of the AO to confirm the addition made by the AO. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made towards advance received from SPCL u/s 56|(2)(vi) of the Act. 28. Coming to the alternative findings of the AO in his assessment order. The AO has discussed the issue under the provisions of section 68 and 28(iv) of the Act. The AO observed that without prejudice to the finding under the provisions of section 56(2)(vi), if at all in appellate proceedings if the assessee taken a plea that the impugned amount revceived by the assessee is an advance, then the money received by the assessee represents loan which raises serious doubts about the genuineness of the transactions and section 68 of the Act come into operation. We do not find any merits in the observation of the AO for the reason that to make addition towards a particular receipt under the provisions of section 68, the AO has to examine three ingredients, i.e. identity, genuineness of transaction, and creditworthiness of the parties. In this case, the assessee has proved the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ft maintained with the bank and the assessee has not made specific borrowing for advancing the funds to Shri Nilesh Thakur. The Id. Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) has already placed reliance from the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in Munjal Sales Corporation, CIT vs Reliance Utilities, and Power Ltd. from Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the decision of the Tribunal in Reliance Industries Ltd. vs DCIT (ITA No.3082/Mum/2006) order 28/05/2012. In para 13.8 (page-48), there is a finding that the own funds of the assessee were to the tune of Rs. 500.81 crores which is consisting of capital and reserves as on 31/03/2008 and the assessee advanced Rs. 43.50 crores to Shri Nilesh Thakur for aggregating the land. We further note that the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) while deliberating upon the issues has duly met with the observation made in the assessment order and justifiably reached to a conclusion. Thus, on merit also, the assessee is having a strong case; consequently, we affirm the uncontroverted finding of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Thus, from this angle also the Revenue has no case at all." 29. In this view of the matter and considering o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her details to prove work done by the assessee and also total payment made to the assessee. 31. The AO, after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the assessee has failed to establish any business connections with SDCL so as to claim receipt of consultancy charges. In the absence of any corroborate evidence that he has done any work relating to any project of SDCL, the claim of the assessee that he has received consultancy charges from SDCL cannot be accepted. The AO further observed that the assessee being a novice man does not have required qualification to carry out the nature of work to be executed to SDCL, failed to prove providing consultancy services as narrated in the agreement between the parties to prove the amount received towards professional charges. Though SDCL has confirmed that they have paid consultancy fees to the assessee in relation to their project, in the light of fact that the assessee has not been able to prove providing consultancy services with necessary evidence and also not incurred any expenditure, the claim of the assessee with regard to the receipt towards professional charges cannot be accepted. The AO further observed that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad incurred various expenditure in connection with the project work which has been debited in the P&L Account. Since the work is not fully completed, the expenditure incurred during the year has been shown as WIP. Therefore, the AO was incorrect in treating the amount received from SDCL as income of the assessee under the head 'Income from other sources'. 33. The CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking into account the findings of the AO in the assessment order, came to the conclusion that the AO was right in making additions towards amount received from SDCL under the head, 'Income from other sources'. The CIT(A) further observed that though both the parties have confirmed that the money has been received for providing consultancy services, the conduct of the parties goes to prove that the money is received for other unknown purposes. The CIT(A) further observed that the assessee could not be able to prove the genuineness of rendering of services to SDCL. He was also not been able to file any evidence to prove the expenditure incurred in connection with the execution of work for SDCL. With these observations, the CIT(A) confirmed the additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goes to prove an undisputed fact that the money has been received for some unknown purposes, but not for the purpose of providing consultancy services. Though both the parties agreed that they have entered into a consultancy agreement for providing consultancy services for the project undertaken by SDCL, the assessee has filed to prove providing of any type of consultancy services. The assessee being a novice man, does not have any required experience in the field of consultancy services to a mega project has stated that he has provided consultancy services. SDCL is a part of a corporate giant has paid such a huge sum of money to the assessee without a proper agreement. In the absence of any evidence to provide consultancy services, the claim of the parties cannot be accepted. The AO, as well as the CIT(A) has drawn a right conclusion based on the evidence gathered during the course of assessment proceedings to treat the impugned amount as income from other sources and, their order should be upheld. 36. We have heard both the parties, perused material available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The factual matrix of the case which leads to the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice man does not have required experience and, therefore, cannot provide consultancy service to a corporate giant like SDCL. According to the AO, the assessee has failed to provide any evidence to prove existence of consultancy agreement between the company and the assessee and also failed to prove incurring of any expenditure towards consultancy services. Therefore, he opined that the amount received from SDCL is not for the purposes of providing consultancy services but for some unknown reasons. We do not find any merit in the findings of the AO for the reason that additions cannot be made to any receipts, merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures on the basis of conduct of the assessee. If the AO wants to tax a particular receipt as income of the assessee, then he should bring on record material evidence to suggest that a particular receipt is taxable within the parameters of the law. If a particular income is not taxable under the Incometax Act, it cannot be taxed on the basis of estoppel or any other equitable doctrine. Therefore, the issue to be decided in the given facts and circumstances of the case is whether amount received from SDCL is taxable in the hands of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived from SDCL. 39. No doubt, the assessee has proved beyond doubt the impugned receipt from SDCL is for the purposes of providing consultancy services. The assessee also filed certain evidences to prove various expenditures incurred in relation to consultancy services. Income cannot be earned without incurring any expenditure. Income and expenditure are two paces of a single coin. To earn income necessary expenditure has to be incurred for providing consultancy services. The assessee has filed his financial statements as per which various expenditures have been incurred. If the AO is not satisfied with the details filed by the assessee to prove the expenditure, the total expenditure incurred for earning income cannot be doubted. It is now well settled that if the AO is making best judgement assessment, he should make an intelligent, well founded estimate. Such estimate must be based on adequate and relevant materials. The mere fact that the material placed by the assessee before the assessing authority is unreliable does not empower those authorities to make an arbitrary order. The power to make assessment on the basis of best judgement is not an arbitrary power. If the AO is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing balance with any evidences. It is the contention of the assessee that he was earning since the age of 18, however, he did not file return of income because his income for the previous years was below the taxable limits. We do not find any merit in the arguments of the assessee for the reason that the assessee has filed to file any evidence to prove the existence of opening capital of Rs. 5 lakhs. The assessee has filed return of income for the first time, therefore, carry forward of opening balance of Rs. 5 lakhs is not justified with any evidence. Therefore, we are of the view that the AO was right in making addition towards opening capital u/s 68 of the Act. The CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions of the assessee has rightly upheld the addition made by the AO. We do not find any error or infirmity in the order of CIT(A). Hence, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the CIT(A) and reject ground raised by the assessee. 41. The next issue that came up for our consideration is addition towards interest income from FD for Rs. 21,71,627. The AO made addition towards interest received on FD under the head Income from other sources. The AO further observed that intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd for detailed discussions in paragraphs no. 22 to 29, we decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The facts considered and reasons given in ITA.No. 3738/M/2013 shall mutatis and mutandis apply to this appeal. Therefore, for the detailed discussion in our order in the preceding paragraph in ITA No.3738/Mum/2013, we direct the AO to delete additions made towards amount received from SPCL for Rs. 41 crores. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee in ground No.1 is allowed. 46. In grounds No.2 & 3, the assessee has challenged additions made by the AO towards amount received from SDCL under the head 'Income from other sources' and denial of carry forward of WIP. But for the figures, a similar issue has been discussed in ITA No.3738/Mum/2013. The facts considered and reasons given in ITA.No. 3738/M/2013 shall mutatis and mutandis apply to this appeal. Therefore, for the detailed discussion in the preceding paras, we direct the AO to treat the impugned amount received from SDCL under the head ' Income from business or profession and also direct him to estimate net profit of 20% on gross receipts. Insofar as carry forward of closing WIP, since we have directed the AO to estim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
