9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of the additional evidence of the Assessee u/s 250(4) - HELD THAT:- Once the ld CIT(A) has admitted the valuation report in regard 313 sq mts. of land, then it was not justified to uphold addition in regard 313 sq mts of land on basis that Assessee had failed to furnish the same before the AO. Thus, it is fit case to transmit back the issue to the ld CIT(A) to take into consideration the valuation report in respect of 313 sq mts of land and determine the issue again. The ground is decided in favour of the Assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 4787/Del/2017 And ITA No. 4667/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 29-9-2022 - Shri N. K. Billaiya, Accountant Member And Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Ved Jain, Adv, Ms. Supriya Mehta, CA For the Revenue : Ms. Rinku Singh, CIT DR, Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, J. M.: 1. These are the appeals preferred by the Assessee and the revenue against the order dated 03.04.2017 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as First Appellate Authority in short Ld. FAA ) in appeal No. 05/201617 before it against the order dated 31.03.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourse to natural justice solely with the thirst of revenue. Assessee made detailed submissions regarding the nature of transfer expenses of Rs 77,59,383/- being spent on E-action, which were ignored by A.O. It is alleged that he further tried to substantiate his disallowance by referring to TDS provisions in general. Assessee also made detailed submissions pertaining to non disallowance of prior period expenses Rs. 3,93,07,000/- as per facts of the case, assessee claims that same were simply ignored. Even acceptance by department for earlier years in scrutiny/ appeal orders was also ignored. Assessee alleges that the Ld.A.O. also wrongly calculated Total taxable income of Rs 826,63,87,002/- including book profit of Rs 1,291,17,54,852/- by making wrong adjustments therein alongwith not allowing the b/d losses including unabsorbed. It is claimed that the A.O. shouldn t have made additions u/s 14A read with rule 8D, Prior Period expenses especially when it has been vehemently struck down by the CIT (A) in earlier years. He should have also not proceeded with additions based on wrong facts on account of Cost of acquisition of property and transfer expenses and calculated total income i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07,000/- was actually crystallized during the year under consideration? 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in allowing relief to the assessee on issue of prior period expense on the basis of its order in the case of the assessee for the earlier assessment year without appreciating that the issue involving factual verification cannot be decided on the basis of its decision for earlier assessment year based on peculiar facts of that year? 3. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in allowing relief to the assessee on the basis of its earlier order in the assessee s own case despite the fact the principle of res-judicata is not applicable to Income Tax Proceedings as each assessment year is a separate year. 5. Heard and perused the record. Ground-wise determination of the issues in respective appeals is as below. 6. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 in Assessee s appeal in ITA No. 4787/Del/2019 . It was submitted on behalf of the Assessee that in spite of Assessee making a suo moto disallowances of Rs. 9,05,897/- without recording any satisfaction for the reasons for disallowanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 176 of the paper book. The provision for investments is certainly not considerable for computing average value of investment which yielded the exempt income during the year. 9. Apart from this there is also substance in the contention of the ld counsel for the Assessee that the AO had failed to record satisfaction before making any disallowance beyond the suo moto disallowance. At the same time the Assessee s own funds are established to be more than the value of investments yielding exempt income. However, the ld CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the aforesaid contention. Accordingly, ground is sustained in favour of the Assessee. 10. Ground No. 4 arising out of Assessee s appeal No. 4787/Del/2017 . It was submitted on behalf of the Assessee that during the year under consideration it has sold property in Aurangabad measuring 18943 sq.mts for Rs. 10,11,00,000/- and another property admeasuring 313 sq mt for Rs. 15,66,252/-. The copies of sale deeds of these two properties is available at page No. 92 to 137 and 138-163 of the paper book. It was submitted that the Assessee however showed it has sold property after claiming index cost of acquisition and valuation reports ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
