9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore there may be more booking amount in cash. We do not find any infirmity in such assumption by the ld Assessing Officer because the assessee has not supplied any information about the total area and list of advances received from parties. It is also surprising that the assessee has stated before the ld CIT(A) that AO has made enquiry u/s 133(6) of the Act and buyers have confirmed. No such evidences have been placed either before the ld CIT(A) or before us or no such reference could be found from the assessment orders itself. We agree with the ld CIT(A) that AO cannot arrive at any figure without any basis by adopting an arbitrary method of calculation. Therefore, even the AO is not justified in assuming the impugned figure of cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mita Tripathy, CIT DR For The Assessee : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of ld CIT(A)-II, New Delhi dated 26.04.2012 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of ₹ 200000000/- made by the Assessing officer on account of undisclosed sale. 2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of expenses of ₹ 3826000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of inadmissible expenses. 3 (a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estimated a sum of ₹ 15 crores for the Gurgaon Project and ₹ 5 crores for Chandigarh Project making the total additions of ₹ 20 cores. 4. It was also found that assessee company has claimed a sum of ₹ 38.26 lakhs as claim of Shri Pankaj Dayal as compensation for which details were asked for but not given, hence, the expenditure of ₹ 38.26 lakhs was disallowed. Consequently, assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act was made on 30.12.2010 at ₹ 456521707/- against returned income of ₹ 252695707/- . 5. On appeal before the ld CIT(A) the addition was deleted for the reason that Assessing Officer has made addition due to non furnishing of details by the assessee. It was further held that the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claim of the assessee. 8. The ld AR vehemently reiterated the same explanation which was made before the ld CIT(A). He further submitted that ld CIT(A) has correctly deleted the same after considering the submission of the assessee that addition is made on imaginary figures. He relied on following decisions:- a. Nexus Builders Developers Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 1484/Mum/2013 order dated 31.01.2017 b. M/s. Sambhavnath Investment ITA NO. 3109/Mum/2011 order dated 31.12.2013 c. Accord Properties ITa No. 741/Pn/2012 order dated 30.04.2014 9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the orders of the lower authorities. The assessee is carrying on two projects and during the course of survey and search p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces received from parties. It is also surprising that the assessee has stated before the ld CIT(A) that Assessing Officer has made enquiry u/s 133(6) of the Act and buyers have confirmed. No such evidences have been placed either before the ld CIT(A) or before us or no such reference could be found from the assessment orders itself. However we agree with the ld CIT(A) that AO cannot arrive at any figure without any basis by adopting an arbitrary method of calculation. Therefore, even the Assessing Officer is not justified in assuming the impugned figure of cash sale out of the books. In view of this we set aside the whole issue of this addition covered in ground No. 1 of the appeal of the Revenue back to the file of the Assessing Officer wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g. Whether such claim has also arisen during the course of business vis a vis with respect to other buyers and whether at the time of booking of such space there was an agreement to pay such compensation. Before the ld Assessing Officer no details were furnished and the ld CIT(A) has not examined the claim of the assessee from above aspect. In view of this we set aside this ground of appeal to the file of the ld Assessing Officer to decide the issue of the claim afresh. Needless to say that opportunity of hearing may be granted to the assessee and after making proper enquiry the issue may be decided. In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed with above direction. 11. In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
