2016 (2) TMI 1351

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d in favour of the said company. CIT(A) also failed to examine whether the refund of deposit of Rs.13 crores had anything to do with the expenditure incurred. Without discussing any material, he simply accepted the written submissions filed by the respondent-assessee before him, which amounts to total non-application of mind, and therefore, fails to fulfil the requirements of a reasoned/speaking order. We are of the considered opinion that interests of justice would be met, if the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo disposal of the appeal in accordance with law.
SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Smt. Mythli Rani For the Respondent : None ORDER Per Int .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ame and downfall in real estate, which is contrary to its claim. 7. The CIT(A) erred in adjudicating the issue that the relinquishment of project and foregoing the expenditure and then writing off the same ·in his books of a/c is only a colourful devise adopted by the assessee for its tax planning. 8. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing." 3. Briefly, the fats of the case are that the Respondent-assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 10956. It is engaged in the business of real estate development. Return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 was filed on 15.10.2010 declaring 'nil' income, after setting off brought forward losses of Rs.3,43,74,506. The return was tak .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the contention that refund of security deposit of Rs.13 crores by M/s. Fortune Constructions has nothing to do with the expenditure incurred on the project, which is abandoned in favour of M/s. Fortune Constructions Ltd. The CIT(A) had not discussed the circumstances under which the project was abandoned in favour of the said company. Furthermore, the CIT(A) also failed to examine whether the refund of deposit of Rs.13 crores had anything to do with the expenditure incurred. Without discussing any material, he simply accepted the written submissions filed by the respondent-assessee before him, which amounts to total non-application of mind, and therefore, fails to fulfil the requirements of a reasoned/speaking order. Therefore, we are of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X