9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. CIT(A) is to grant an opportunity of hearing to the Assessing Officer before deleting the addition. The matter should be remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue in proper prospective in accordance with law. Thus, the ground of appeal No.2 raised by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Addition made u/s.56(2) (viia) - CIT(A) granted relief after considering the fact that the difference of fair market value and the value adopted by the Assessing Officer is less than 1% - HELD THAT:- Nothing was brought to our notice controverting the findings of the ld. CIT(A). In these circumstances, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) in this issue. Accordingly, grounds of appeal 3 4 raised by the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iia) of the Act without making a finding of fact nor applying any legal precedent or fiction for allowing the relief. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee by deleting the deemed income added by the AO under section 56(2)(viia) of the Act merely on equity without applying any provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961. 5. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the AO restored . 5. The brief facts of the case are as under: The respondent-assessee namely M/s. Jain Housing is a Partnership firm constituted under the Partnership Act and engaged in the business of property development. The return of income for the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r considering the additional evidence ought not have granted partial relief in respect of addition made u/s.36 (1) (iii) of the Act. As regards to the deletion of addition in respect of Section 56(2) (viia) of the Act, the ld. Sr. Departmental Representative submitted that the ld. CIT(A) ought not have granted relief as the addition is based on the plain provisions of Income Tax Act. 8. On the other hand, the ld. Authorised Representative placed reliance on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 9. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The grounds of appeal No.1 5 are general in nature therefore, does not require any adjudication. 10. Ground No.2, challenges the direction of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these circumstances, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) in this issue. Accordingly, grounds of appeal 3 4 raised by the Revenue stand dismissed. 12. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.337/CHNY/2019 for assessment year 2013-2014 is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 13. Now, we take up ITA No.338/CHNY/2019, for assessment year 2014-2015 for adjudication. 14. It is stated before us that the tax effect in this case is less than Rs.20 lakhs and therefore, the Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in exercise of its power vested under Sec. 268A(1) of the IT Act comes into play wherein, the monetary limit for filing the appeal by the Revenue before the ITAT and v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
