9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reference to the factual position of 2010-11 AY which has been taken note of by the AO in the year under consideration since at present stage his limited prayer is that the issue be remanded which prayer is not opposed by the Revenue. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - I.T.A .No.-2954/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 7-12-2016 - SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by Sh.Rohit Garg, CA Revenue by Sh.Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.DR ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 29.02.2016 of the CIT(A)-30, New Delhi pertaining to 2011-12 on the following grounds:- 1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)| erred on facts and in law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited prayer that let the issue be restored to the AO to consider the view taken by the AO in the two succeeding consecutive years where full facts have been thrashed out by the parties as in the year under consideration the facts are sketchy. The Ld.Sr.DR considering the aforesaid order of the AO in 2013-14 AY, had no objection if the issue is considered afresh by the AO. 3. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts recorded in the assessment order are that the assessee is the owner of office space number A-1601 B-1601, 16th Floor, Statesman House, Barakhamba road, New Delhi having total super built up area of 5402 sq.ft. The AO required the assessee company to explain why the company ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re also found to be not available thus it was concluded that the assessee has not carried out any business activities and has not used the premises for its own purposes. Accordingly, the fair rental value of the said property was taken as ₹ 34,02,400/-. The AO further considered that the assessee was basically a paper company and not actively pursuing any business as it was simply receiving funds from paper/inactive companies of similar nature in the form of share capital or loans and passing it off in the form of share capital or loans and advances. Thus it was held that the assessee did not have any legitimate income. 3.2. The issue travelled in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) in para 5.4, considering the fact that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
