9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of delay explaining reasons for delay has been filed, for which, the ld.Counsel for the assessee did not raise any objection. Having heard both sides and considered petition filed by the Revenue for condonation of delay, we are of the considered view that reasons given by Revenue for not filing the appeal within the time allowed under the Act comes under reasonable cause as provided under the Act for condonation of delay and hence, delay in filing of above appeal is condoned and appeal filed by the Revenue is admitted for adjudication. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. Order of CIT(A) is erroneous both on law and facts. 2. Whether the CIT(A) is correct in holding that when income from sales received in e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut deducting tax at source u/s 194B when the assessee did not, furnish such details before either the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A)? 8. Any other ground that may be adduced at the time of hearing, the order of Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm which is engaged in the business of real estate filed its return of income for the AY 2016-17 on 16.10.2016 declaring total income of Rs.59,05,500/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that during financial year relevant to AY 2016-17, the assessee had admitted gross turnover of Rs.14,51,75,018/-. The AO further noted that the assessee has followed uni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e method of accounting, whereby, it had nullified the effect of provisions of Sec.43CA of the Act, which is evident from the fact that the difference between actual consideration received and guideline value of the property has been accounted in the books of accounts as sale consideration in terms of sec.43CA of the Act. However, a similar amount has been debited to business development on sales expenses, thereby, nullified the sales declared in terms of provisions of Sec.43CA of the Act. Therefore, rejected the arguments of the assessee and disallowed business development on sales expenses amounting to Rs.1,83,11,675/-. 6. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the reason that the project got delayed and expenditure incurred by the assessee towards stamp paper, etc., is allowable is incorrect. The Ld.DR further submitted that the AO has disallowed expenses, whereas, the Ld.CIT(A) allowed relief by giving different reasons that provisions of Sec.43CA r.w.s.50C of the Act, cannot be invoked. Therefore, he submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is completely erred in deleting the addition made towards disallowance of expenses. Therefore, the issue may be set aside to the file of the AO to verify the claim of the assessee with regard to certain expenses incurred on behalf of buyers and to decide the issue in accordance with law. 8. The Ld.AR for the assessee, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transfer of property is less than the guideline value, the assessee has accounted difference between actual consideration and guideline value as sales income. To this extent, there is no dispute. In fact, the AO has accepted the fact that the assessee has accounted income in the books of accounts. But, the only dispute is with regard to the corresponding debit to business development on sales expenses towards equal amount of difference between actual consideration and guideline value. The assessee has adopted a unique method of accounting, thereby, credited difference between guideline value and actual consideration to sales income and debited to business development on sales expenses. In other words, the net effect for the purpose of taxat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee has not substantiated expenses debited under the head 'business development on sales expenses'. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the AO and direct the AO to re-examine the case of the assessee in light of claim of the assessee that it has incurred certain expenses as per oral understanding with purchasers. The assessee is directed to furnish necessary evidences before the AO to justify its case. 10. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No.7 of the Revenue's appeal is deletion of disallowance of gift on gold coins amounting to Rs.49,744/- & Rs.78,366/- respectively. The AO has disallowed gift expenditure u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act, for non-deduction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
