9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so pointed out that the land purchased was stock-in-trade of the assessee and has further relied on a decision of ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Kunjika Construction [ 2013 (4) TMI 783 - ITAT INDORE] which he stated was passed on identical facts. the addition was upheld. In view of the above categorical findings of the Ld. CIT(A) demonstrating ineligibility of the assessee from exemption from the rigors of section 40A(3) of the Act, we see no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) - In view of the above the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made u/s 40A is upheld Addition on account of preliminary expenses - HELD THAT:- This claim has been disallowed not on account of it being preliminary expenses but on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing was returned back with the noting that despite three attempts made, i.e. on 07/10/21, 08/1021 and 09/10/21, nobody was found at the stated address. It is evident that the assessee does not seem to be interested in pursuing the appeal. The appeal was, therefore, proceeded to be heard and decided ex-parte. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: 1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law, having passed against the principles of natural justice. The same may be quashed. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition of ₹ 4,66,000/-, so made u/s. 40A(3) of the Act by the A.O. The same may be deleted. 3. On facts and circumstances o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made in cash. I find that the appellant has not filed any documentary evidences in support of its claim. The appellant has claimed exemption from provisions of section 40A(3) by relying on Rule 6DD(g). However, the name and addresses of the seller of land have not been submitted. Thus, it is not established whether the area itself was served with a banking facility or not. Moreover, the land purchased was part of the appellant's ''stock-in-trade and the case is squarely covered against the appellant by the decision of the Hon'ble Indore ITAT in the case of Kunjika Construction Vs ITO in ITA No. 584/Ind/2013 dated 12/04/2013, which is based on identical-facts. Considering the discussion above, addition of ₹ 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption from the rigors of section 40A(3) of the Act, we see no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 8. In view of the above the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of ₹ 4,66,000/- made under Section 40A of the Act is upheld. Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 9. Ground No. 3 relates to the issue of addition made of ₹ 6,44,785/- on account of preliminary expenses. 10. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard, we find that is at Para 5.2 of the order as under: 5.2 I have considered the facts of the case, assessment order and submission made by the appellant. The AO disallowed the amount of ₹ 6,44,785/- which was the claim of preliminary expenses claimed as loss by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
