9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeared despite service of notice nor filed any written submission. Therefore, in absence of any detailed requirement in support of various grounds of appeal raised by assessee, we do not find any reason to deviate from the finding of ld. PCIT. Accordingly, we confirm the order of PCIT that the assessment order is erroneous and in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In the result, the various grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are rejected. - ITA No.398/SRT/2018 - - - Dated:- 5-9-2022 - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member And Dr Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri H. P. Meena CIT-DR ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDIC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opment expenses incurred were disproportionately high when compared with the cost of land without pointing out any defect in the books of accounts and without appreciating that provision s of section 145 were neither invoked by the Assessing Officer CIT in the course of revision proceedings. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee-company was engaged in business of real estate development. The assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2013-14 on 31.03.2015 declaring income of Rs.3.82 crores. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 30.03.2016. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order made certain including the additions under section 68 of Rs.4.15 crores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed under section 68 of the Act as cash credit for assessment year 2013-14 in the assessment order. Further, on perusal of the case records, it is found that the assessee-firm had paid remuneration of Rs.40 lakhs to its partners. The assessees book profit after excluding the survey disclosure works out to Rs.7,19,295/-.Accordingly, the allowable remuneration works out to Rs.5,21,57/- as against Rs.40 lakhs. 4. On the basis of such identified issues, the Ld. PCIT issued show cause notice under section 263 by taking a view that the assessment order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of justice for the want of complete inquiry on the above issues. The assessee contested the revisional proceedings by filing its reply d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled before this Tribunal, substantiate to various grounds of appeal. Therefore, we left no option except to hear the submission of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax - Departmental Representative (Ld. CIT-DR) for the Revenue and to decide the case on the basis of materials available on record. The ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue supported the order passed by Ld. PCIT and he submits that during the hearing of revisional proceedings, the assessee was given ample opportunities to contest its case, however, the assessee failed to substantiate its various issues identified by ld. PCIT, which was not investigated by the Assessing Officer during assessment. Thus, the order passed by Assessing Officer on 30.03.2016 is erroneous and in so far as prejudicial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
