9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 757X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the DR at the time of hearing. Thus it can be inferred that, if the amount of loss claimed by the assessee in the year under consideration is disallowed then such disallowance/addition will lead to the double addition which is not desirable under the provisions of law. Assuming, the contention/finding of the AO is correct that impugned loss is not allowable for deduction in the year under consideration, then it is incumbent upon the AO to reduce the amount of income which was offered to tax by the assessee in the subsequent assessment year. If it is not done so, then the assessee will suffer to tax 2 times with respect to the same amount in 2 different assessment years which is not desirable under the provisions of law. Accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the loss on estimation basis and therefore not allowable u/s.37 of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(A) may be set-aside and that the Assessing Officer be restored. 3. The solitary issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for ₹ 1,91,25,000/- on account of construction loss claimed by the assessee. 4.1 The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of real estate, construction, supervision and develop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aimed by the assessee for ₹ 1,91,25,000/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under: 2.2. I have considered the contentions of the appellant as well as the details compiled in the paper book. From verification of the details, it is seen that AUDA had given the development permission of the residential plots scheme Sahajanand Palace subject to condition that the construction carried out for 5 bungalows to be removed. There was a prohibition for construction on the site and there was a stay by AUDA, hence there was an order to demolish five Bungalows. During the A.Y. 2011-12, the documents for three ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een paid thereon and as the appellant has booked the loss on the basis of Accounting Principles issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, hence the construction loss incurred by the appellant for an amount of ₹ 1,91,25,000/- is allowed. Hence, appeal on this ground is allowed. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. The learned DR before us vehemently supported the order of the AO. On the contrary, the learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 423 and contended that the construction loss claimed in the year under consideration was offered to tax in the subsequent assessment years. The learned AR in support of his contention drew our at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not correct as it has claimed a deduction in the current assessment year and which can be allowed only it is permissible under the provision the Act. 8.1 Assuming, the contention/finding of the AO is correct that impugned loss is not allowable for deduction in the year under consideration, then it is incumbent upon the AO to reduce the amount of income which was offered to tax by the assessee in the subsequent assessment year. If it is not done so, then the assessee will suffer to tax 2 times with respect to the same amount in 2 different assessment years which is not desirable under the provisions of law. Accordingly in the absence of any adverse finding by the AO for the adjustment of the construction loss claimed by the assessee in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
