9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the A.O by working out the rightful license of the said area in respect of Iris Project - HELD THAT:- Assessee had merely claimed as its expense, while other half expense had been received as reimbursement from M/s Weldon Technologies Park Development. CIT(A) has also arrived to the conclusion to delve the addition by going through the breakup of direct expenses containing group Misc. work(OE) with copy of the ledger account license renewal fee along with the bank statement showing the credit reimbursement received.The said finding of the fact with cogent evidence and the decision made thereupon by the CIT(A) requires no interference and we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the above disallowance made u/s 37 by the A.O. requires no interference. Ground of the revenue is dismissed. Scope of limited scrutiny - AO moved further to verify closing stocks of the assessee company along with other expense heads debited in the revenue account and ultimately made addition/disallowances which are not part of the reasons mentioned in the limited scrutiny - HELD THAT:- If a case is taken for limited scrutiny by the A.O., he cannot exceed the jurisdiction beyond the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of Rs. 4,40,57,000/- on account of suppression of stock and also deleted the disallowance of Rs. 7,09,000/- out of the total addition of Rs. 11,66,454/- made by the A.O u/s 37 of the Act. As against the said deletions the revenue has preferred the appeal in ITA No. 9872/Del/2019 on the grounds mentioned above and the assessee has preferred the Cross Objection No. 9/Del/2020 by challenging the order of the CIT(A) in sustaining the partial addition is concerned. 5. Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has committed an error in deleting the additions made on account of suppression of closing stock and also erred in deleting the disallowance made u/s 37 of the Act and relied on the assessment order. 6. Per contra the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. Assessing Officer had erroneously made addition of Rs. 4,40,57,000/- without appreciating the fact that non saleable area which are in the nature of necessary requirements for real estate projects for smooth operation of the same, assigned valuation to the same, which has been rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts in detail. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by observing that the A.O had not taken into consideration that the 50% of the License fee received reimbursement from other party to whom it had sold the 50% land with 50% FSI way back in 2005. Further found that the assessee had merely claimed 6,67,000/- as its expense, while other half expense had been received as reimbursement from M/s Weldon Technologies Park Development. The Ld. CIT(A) has also arrived to the conclusion to delve the addition by going through the breakup of direct expenses containing group Misc. work(OE) with copy of the ledger account license renewal fee along with the bank statement showing the credit reimbursement received. In our opinion, the said finding of the fact with cogent evidence and the decision made thereupon by the CIT(A) requires no interference and we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the above disallowance of Rs. 7,09,000/- made u/s 37 of the Act by the A.O. requires no interference. Thus, we do not find merit in Ground No. 2 of the Revenue, accordingly the ground No. 2 of the revenue is dismissed. 12. In the result, the appeal in ITA No. 9872/Del/2019 filed by the revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 15/01/2018, provided the reasons so asked by the assessee which is reproduced by the assessee at paper book at Page 42 and 43. As per the said documents reasons of limited scrutiny are as under:- Large other expenses claimed in the Profit Loss a/c Mismatch in amount paid to related persons u/s 40A92)(b) reported in Audit Report and ITR Sale of property reported in Form 260B Purchase of property reported in Form 260B 18. The assessment of the assessee company was selected for limited scrutiny for the reasons mentioned above, the Ld. Assessing Officer moved further to verify closing stocks of the assessee company along with other expense heads debited in the revenue account and ultimately made addition/disallowances which are not part of the reasons mentioned in the limited scrutiny. The said action of the Ld. A.O is contrary to the procedure prescribed by the CBDT Instruction No. 20/2015 dated 29/12/2015 which reads as follows:- 3. As far as the returns selected for scrutiny through CASS-2015 are concerned, two type of cases have been selected for scrutiny in the current Financial Year one is Limited Scrutiny and other is Comple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
