9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 2001X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not correct in law and facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.4,73,53,263/-(Rs.34,06,230/- + Rs.4,39,47,033/-) made by AO as benefit/perquisite u/s. 2(24)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 1.1. The Cross-Objection is filed in support of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the above addition. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that A.O. made two additions of Rs.34,06,230/- as income on account of benefit/perquisite under section 2(24)(iv) of the I.T. Act (M/s. AHS Joint Venture) and Rs.4,39,47,033/- as income on account of benefit/perquisite under section 2(24)(iv) of the I.T. Act (M/s. AIPL). 3. Both the additions were challenged before Ld. CIT(A). Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property/project, so Section 2(24)(iv) do not apply. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) however following his appellate order for the A.Y. 2010-2011, deleted the addition. His findings in para 4.2 of the Order is reproduced as under : "4.2. I have considered the assessment order, the submissions made and the documents filed. As regards the amount of Rs.34,06,230/- received by the appellant from M/s AHS Joint Venture (AHS), it is seen from the ledger account that there is no payment by M/s Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. (UHC) to AHS which can be linked even remotely to the said advance. Therefore, the averment of the revenue that the advance originated from UHC has no factual basis. It is further noted that the provisions of section 2(24)(iv) are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal. 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing of the appeal. On earlier occasion, the appeal was adjourned at the request of the Counsel for Assessee. Assessee was also intimated the date of hearing of the appeal fixed on 12.12.2018 through registered post. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. 7. After considering the submissions of the Ld. D.R, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the A.O. The Ld. CIT(A) in this case following his Order for the A.Y. 2010-2011 allowed the appeal of assessee. The Ld. D.R. however filed copy of the Order of the Tribunal Dated 26.03.2018 in the case of same assessee in which for A.Y. 2009-2010 in ITA.No.4836/Del./2014, the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
