9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1823X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Tribunal that some expenditure is bound to be incurred for this purpose. But the AO has not taken into consideration those expenses. Therefore, the matter is restored back to the file of AO for fresh decision with the direction that the claim of the expenditure incurred in levelling of the plot or otherwise relevant should be re-examined and the matter may be decided afresh. In the present case which is of a co-owner, respectfully follow this Tribunal order in the case of co-owners and set aside the order of CIT(A) in the present case also in all the three years and restore the matter back to the file of AO for fresh decision with the same directions as were given by the Tribunal in para 7 of the Tribunal order which is reproduced above.The AO should pass necessary order as per law as per above discussion after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - ITA Nos. 517 to 519/Bang/2018 - - - Dated:- 23-3-2018 - SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Smt. Pratibha R, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri L.V. Bhaskar Reddy, Addl. CIT (DR) ORDER Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Mem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be allowed proportionately. 9. The ld CIT (A) ought to have considered the documentary evidences filed with regard to the expenditure incurred for development of land, or given one more opportunity before the AO for explanation. Thus, the ld CIT(A) ought to have allowed the expenditure incurred in full 10. Without prejudice, the impugned additions confirmed are opposed to law in that no adequate opportunity was given to the appellant to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the financial results there from besides the source of investment. 11. Without prejudice, the additions/disallowances were excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable and ought to be reduced substantially. 12. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the interest u/s.234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 13. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No. 519/Bang/2018 are as under. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reopening of the assessment U/s.147 of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of investment. 11. Without prejudice, the additions/disallowances were excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable and ought to be reduced substantially. 12. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the interest u/s.234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 13. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed. 4. The grounds raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 in ITA No. 517/Bang/2018 are as under. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reopening of the assessment U/s.147 of the Act by issuing the notice U/s.148 was opposed to law and accordingly the assessment as made is liable to be cancelled. 2. The conditions precedent being absent, the reopening of the assessment U/s.147 is bad in law. 3. There being no omission much less an omission of declaration of income in therelevant assessment year in the return of income filed by the appellant, the reopening of the assessment U/s.147 was without jurisdiction and consequently the reassessment is liable to be annulled. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred confirmi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pressed in all the three years.Regarding merit of the case i.e. ground nos. 7 to 10, she submitted that in the case of co-owners i.e. Smt. M. Lakshmi Vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 539 542/Bang/2017 and Smt. H. Gayathri Vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 575, 540 541/Bang/2017 dated 26.05.2017, the Tribunal has restored back the matter to AO for fresh decision. She submitted a copy of this combined Tribunal order and drawn my attention to Para 7 of this Tribunal order in this regard. She also submitted that Tribunal has restored the matter back to the file of AO for fresh decision on this basis that AO had not taken into consideration the expenditure incurred by the assessee for carving out 90 plots out of the total lands purchased and for this carving out, some expenditure is bound to be incurred. She submitted that on page no. 10 of the paper book is the detail of year-wise expenditure in respect of cost of development incurred by the assessee i.e. amounts of ₹ 74,45,632/- in the year 2004-05, ₹ 16,01,685/- in the year 2005-06 and ₹ 1,06,73,876/- in the year 2006-07. She submitted that in the same line, in the present case also, the matter may be restored back to the file of AO for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
