9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing grounds of appeal : "1. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dis missing the appeal is contrary to law, erroneous and unsustainable on the facts of the case. 2. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 88,11,291 added back by the Assessing Officer in the assessment. 3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in adding the difference in the amount of Rs. 11,31,13,700 being TDS effected by M/s. Dugar Housing Ltd. and the actual receipts of Rs. 10,43,02,409 considered by the assessee in the return as understatement of receipts. 4. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that as per the joint development agreement with M/s. Dugar Housing Ltd. the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S and that offered by the assessee before the completion of the project and hence the arbitrary addition made is to be deleted. 9. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) further failed to appreciate that the TDS credit taken by the assessee is in line with the actual income shown in the financials and the balance of credit had been carried forward to the later years when the income has been offered and hence the addition is uncalled for and cannot be sustained. 10. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the assessee having provided the entire basis of working out the income on the project completion basis, was not justified in merely confirming the addition made by officer without pointing out any deficienc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer turn downed the sub mission pointing out that the assessee is only a land owner. Form 26AS clearly shows the sale of immovable property, accordingly tax was deducted under section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") Rs. 11,31,13,700. 4. Being aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer (AO). 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. It is submitted that the assessee had entered into a joint development agreement with M/s. Dugar Housing Limited on M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut only was the land owner of the property. Therefore, the difference amount contained in form 26AS and shown in the profit and loss account was brought to tax. This is an issue which requires to be decided having regard to the terms of the joint development agreement and the intention of the parties to the agreement. Thus, the intention of the parties can be gauged from the entries made in the books of account. Entries in the books of account clearly goes to show that the assessee is only a partner in the development of scheduled property of the agreement. In any event, no addition can be made based on a mere difference between form 26AS and the amount shown in the profit and loss account and in the absence of any reconciliation and corrob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
