9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee are partly allowed. MAT computation - authorities below have not considered the book profit declared by the assessee under MAT provisions i.e. u/s. 115JB - Held that:- Remit the ground for computing the taxable income after considering the addition confirmed by the Tribunal vis-à-vis the book profits declared by the assessee under the provision of section 115JB. Addition to 15% of the income from house property - Held that:- Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the impugned order has observed that the assessee while computing income under the head Income from house property has claimed staturoty deductions only. The ld. DR has not been able to substantiate infirmity in the order of First Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the ground No. 1 raised in the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of merit. - ITA No.1157/PUN/2015 And ITA No.1181/PUN/2015 - - - Dated:- 30-10-2018 - SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM For The Assessee : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar For The Revenue : Shri Pankaj Garg ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : This cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are directed against the order of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the said head. Further, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) enhanced the income by ₹ 2,91,79,690/- in respect of Short Term Capital Gain. Against the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) both, the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee in appeal has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by raising following grounds : Ground No: 1 The Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding assessment at 300% of income under the head 'Business Income'. He failed to follow the order passed by him in earlier year enhancing the income by 15% instead of 300% when there is no substantial change of facts of disputes between directors. Ground No: 2 The Id. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in respect of making further addition of ₹ 64,36,734/- to the assessed estimated income of 1,93,10,202/- under the head income from business or profession. In the order, the Ld. CIT(A) adjudicated that he is not going to interfere with the order of Ld. AO in respect of Income under the head Business Income. He thus erred on increasing the income by 300% instead of computing the income at 300% of tentative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome returned. However, in the present assessment year the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not followed his own order in the previous assessment year and has confirmed the findings of Assessing Officer in respect of Business Income. The ld. AR furnished a copy of Tribunal order in appeal by the Revenue in ITA No. 1972/PUN/2013 for assessment year 2007-08, wherein the Tribunal upheld the action of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in restricting the addition to 15% of the income returned. 4. On the other hand Shri Pankaj Garg representing the Department vehemently defended the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in confirming the addition of 300% of the income disclosed by the assessee. The ld. DR pointed that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in para 15 of the impugned order has specified the reason as to why he is not following his earlier order of restricting the addition to 15%. 4.1 In respect of the appeal filed by the Department the ld. DR submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in restricting the addition in respect of income from house property to 15%. The reasoning given by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (supra) has confirmed the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in restricting the addition to 15% of the income returned. The assessee in the assessment year under appeal has furnished tentative financial statements declaring Business Income of ₹ 64,36,734/-. The Revenue has made addition of ₹ 1,93,10,202/- on mere estimation. We are in agreement with the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the facts of the present case are at variance as no audited accounts have been furnished by the assessee and there is no tax audit report u/s. 44AB of the Act. The income declared by the assessee in tentative financial results does not carry any sanctity, therefore, the ratio applied in A.Y. 2007-08 would not hold in good in A.Y. 2008-09. At the same time we are of considered view that 300% addition made by Revenue authorities is very much on the higher site. Taking into consideration entirety of facts we restrict the addition to 200% of the Business Income declared in the tentative financial statements filed by the assessee. Accordingly, ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised in the appeal by the assessee are partly allowed. 7. In ground No. 3 of the appeal the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
