9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are examined and accepted by the A.O. and no adverse remark regarding book of accounts, availability of cash etc. was found by the A.O. who in fact specifically accepted such payment. Hence payment is as per the registered agreement which is a sale deed and there is no requirement of any cash flow statement when payment is from cash book maintained in the ordinary course of business. In fact addition for doubting source is to be made U/s 69 and not for the disallowance of expenditure and in fact ld. CIT(A) raised only doubts but has not denied that payment has been made. All the bills are bearing name/address/phone no. of the supplier and most of the bills are bearing printed numbers as well as item supplied like rodi, cement etc. Beside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Lower Authority is bad in law as well as is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That learned CIT (A) grossly erred in making enhancements of ₹ 11,26,600/- of ₹ 6,97,400/- by disallowing the very incurrence of said expenditures, being incurred wholly in connection to transfer of property and improvement of same u/s 48 of the Act, without rejecting accounts, without conducting any direct enquiry or finding any material against the assessee and despite accepting the accounts and verification of said exp. by Ld. AO, hence enhancement is inherently illegal. 3. That in addition to above, learned CIT (A) further erred in disallowing the expenditure ₹ 11,26,600/-, being payment of stamp duty, thereb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 008-09 was completed u/s 143(3) on 30.12.2010 by making an addition of ₹ 24,98,769/-, Out of additions ₹ 11,63,000/-, assessee had not filed any appeal and on balance addition of ₹ 13,35,769/-, which was contested before CIT(A) ₹ 2,77,335/- on account of applicability of Section 50C was deleted by the CIT(A). Balance addition of ₹ 10,58,434/- being interest on borrowed funds capitalized is made by AO. AO disallowed interest on bank loan taken for property as the same is not allowable u/s 48, beside assessee claimed deduction of interest U/s 24 in AY 05-06/06-07. This addition is contested by assessee in terms of his ground 2 before first appellate authority in which he also relied on 99 ITR 148 (DEL) which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufficient details and no enquiry from parties/assessee was conducted in case of doubt. Allegation of rented building wrong, which was on record. 6. In support of Ground No. 4 5 of the appeal of the assessee, the ld. AR submitted that the interest paid on housing loan is part of cost of acquisition and same should be allowed U/s 48 of the Act, Further, in earlier two years i.e. AY 2005-06 2006-07 assessee claimed interest U/s 24(b) wrongly and the same was offered for taxation and ultimately disallowed by the authorities, hence addition of ₹ 10,58,434/- is also a case of double taxation. 7. The ld. DR on the other hand, argued in support of enhancement on the basis that payments are made in cash and no proper evidences were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) raised only doubts but has not denied that payment has been made. 9. As per Page No. 53-57 of the paper book Ld A.R had submitted the bills and vouchers of the expenses incurred for the development of the property which are sufficient evidence for incurrence of said expenses. All the bills are bearing name/address/phone no. of the supplier and most of the bills are bearing printed numbers as well as item supplied like rodi, cement etc. Beside AO has not rejected accounts and specifically accepted these expenses. In any case in case of any doubt ld. CIT(A) had to conduct inquiry from the suppliers or at least had to enquire from the assessee about his doubts as onus was on him to prove expenses bogus. His observation about rented prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
