9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el expenses, Business Promotion expenses and rebate - additional income surrendered by the assessee will cover the disallowance above - HELD THAT:- During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee did not furnish the details as called for by the Assessing Officer for which he disallowed foreign travelling expenses and business promotion expenses. Although the CIT(A) deleted the addition/disallowance on the ground that the assessee has surrendered an amount of ₹ 461.15 lakh towards disallowance u/s 40A(3)/40(a)(ia) and u/s 68 and 69C of the Act and other unexplainable documents/entries for which no addition is called for, however, it is a fact that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IB(10) on the additional income so declared. Therefore, it cannot be said that the additional income surrendered by the assessee will cover the disallowance of the above expenditure for want of bills and vouchers and the expenditure which is being claimed by the assessee. We, therefore, reverse the order of the CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to give an opportunity to the assessee. Ground of appeal Nos.2, 3 and 4 raised by the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of land. It was argued that purchase of land is part of its core activity of real-estate development business. These advances were given to acquire land for development and sale purpose which is the only business of the assessee company. It was further argued that the unsecured loans were received much before the advances for purchases of land. 5. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. In absence of furnishing of any agreement for purchase of land or acquisition of land from these parties, the Assessing Officer disbelieved the arguments advanced by the assessee. Since the assessee did not furnish the copy of agreement or sale deed or any other evidence to justify that the payments have been made for the purpose of business to different companies who are also engaged in similar line of business, the Assessing Officer, invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(iii), made addition of ₹ 22,21,526/- being the proportionate interest on diversion of borrowed funds for non-business purpose. 6. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A), following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Tapa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpanies/parties engaged in the business of real-estate and, in fact, the assessee has either purchased land from the said parties or has entered into any agreement with the same parties. The assessment order clearly reveals that despite opportunities granted by the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence to support its claim that the advances were given for purchase of land. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate with evidence to his satisfaction that the assessee has given advances for procurement of land which is the business of the company. The Assessing Officer shall decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The ground raised by the Revenue on this issue is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Ground of appeal Nos.2, 3 and 4 of the Revenue read as under:- 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bate allowed totaling to ₹ 19,14,551/-. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee on the ground that the rebate claimed in the books is on account of M/s Ooma Dreamhomez Pvt. Ltd. and the amount being not recoverable from it was debited to rebate account. He, therefore, made addition of ₹ 19,14,551/-. 14. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) deleted all the three additions by observing as under:- 4.1 Having gone through the submissions, the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer and the facts available on the record, it emerges that the Assessing Officer has disallowed an amount of ₹ 30,08,000 out of the travelling expenses on account of foreign travel and the entire expenditure of ₹ 32,10,556 out of business promotion expenses. It is pertinent to note here that during the assessment proceedings the attention of the Assessing Officer was drawn to the fact that the assessee during the course of survey u/s 133 of the Act on 07.10.2011 has voluntarily surrendered an amount of ₹ 461.15 lacs towards disallowances u/s 40A(3)/ 40(a)(ia) and u/s 68 and 69C of the Act and other u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
