9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30,435/- relating to alleged non-business expenses. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and circumstances of the case in confirming addition of Rs. 91,90,000/- made by Ld. AO on account of Long-Term Capital Gain on the sale of property in the hand of the appellate company without appreciating: (a) that ownership cannot be transferred to a person without consideration. (b) The company cannot become owner who has not made any payment to director. (c) that HSIDC only permitted company to use the plot for manufacturing and thus cannot make it owner. (d) that capital gain if any, can be charged only in the hands of owner but not on the name of lender for purchases of HSIDC. (e) that owner of the property was Director of the assessee company Shri S. K. Gupta as per the sale deed executed at the time of purchase in his name and the assessee company was only authorized to use the property. (f) that while computing capital gains no benefit of indexation has been allowed. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the disallowance made by Ld. AO of claim of bad debts of Rs. 17,00,000/- being short payment received on full and final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer who was of the firm belief that he plot in question has been sold to M/s Poly Medicure Limited by way of conveyance deed in which the assessee has been shown as the vendor/seller in the capacity of the company and the deed has been executed by Shri Surender Kumar Gupta in the capacity of the director and authorized signatory of the company. 10. The Assessing Officer observed that the seller of the property, as per record of the Registration Authority, is the assessee company and consideration has been received by the assessee company and went on to make addition of Rs. 91.90 lakhs. 11. The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success. 12. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities and pointed out that Supplementary Agreement for industrial plot/shed was entered into by the assessee on 28.05.2009 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the said industrial plot was allotted to Shri Surender Kumar Gupta for the purpose of setting up of an industry and by this agreement, Shri Surender Kumar Gupta requested for change in constitution and request was accepted and allottee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , succession due to death of the owner/majority shareholders or take over by the public financial institutions. No transfer fee will be levied in cases of industrial units which have been in commercial production for more than five years and are free from encumbrances Similarly no transfer fee will be leviable in cases of transfers necessitated on account of inheritance, family transfer or take over by a financial institution. Only a processing fee of Rs.5000/- (or as revised from time to time) will be charged in all such cases However-prior permission of HSIDC is mandatory." 16. The aforementioned clauses clearly show that the ownership was changed from Shri Surender Kumar Gupta to the assessee and hence there should not be any dispute in so far as who is the seller of the property is. Facts on record clearly demonstrate that the seller of the property is the assessee and the property has been sold by Shri Surender Kumar Gupta in the capacity of being the director of the assessee company. Facts which have not been controverted by any documentary evidences and rightly appreciated by the first appellate authority read as under: "5.3.1 The page 2 to 4 of the registered sale de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion was granted HSIIDC vide their letter dated 13/07/2009. Hence the Company M/S. Aditya Olibchem Private Limited was using the said land and building at Plot No. 80, Sector-59, HSIIDC, Industrial Estate, Faridabad knee 2009 till date of sale of the said property. * AND WHEREAS previously, the Industrial Plot bearing No. 80, Sector-59, measuring 450 sq. metres (538.2 sq. yards) of the HSIIDC, Faridabad has been purchased by Shri Surender Kumar Gupta son of Shri P.C. Gupta Resident of 10/23, Nehru Enclave, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 out of his own money from the office of Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, having its Registered Office at C-13-14, Sector-06, Panchkula and the Conveyance Deed of the said Plot was executed from the office of HSIIDC, Faridabad/Panchkula on dated 13/03/2002 and the said Conveyance Deed of the said Plot had been registered in favour of Shri Surender Kumar Gupta in, the office of Sub-Registrar, Ballabgarh vide Document No. 6919, dated 03/10/2006;. * Thereafter the said Industrial Plot bearing No. 80, Sector-59, measuring 450 sq. metres, HSIIDC, Industrial Estate, Faridabad has change in constitution from Shri Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, I hold that the AO has correctly added the amount of Rs. 91,90,000/- to the total income of the appellant company on account of sale of the said Industrial Plot bearing No. 80, Sector-59, measuring 450 sq. metres, HSIIDC, Industrial Estate, Faridabad. This ground of appeal is decided against the appellant." 17. In light of the afore-stated uncontroverted facts, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 2 with its sub-grounds is dismissed. 18. Ground No. 3 relates to the disallowance of claim of bad debts of Rs. 17 lakhs. 19. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has written off Rs. 17 lakhs as provision for bad debts. Since the provision for bad debts is not an allowable expenditure, the Assessing Officer disallowed the same. 20. The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success. 21. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that inadvertently the nomenclature has been given as provision for bad debt, but in fact, the same is write off of bad debts. 22. Per contra, the ld. DR supported the findings of the lower authorities. 23 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /-. 33. While scrutinizing the return, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has written off Rs. 2,6,180/-, which the assessee claimed as reversal of duty claim, as detected by the audit party of the Excise department. 34. The Assessing Officer further noticed that Service Tax amounting to Rs. 1,30,435/- on transport of material was also charged by the audit party and the same amount was adjusted against Excise Duty in the record. Since no evidence was produced before the Assessing Officer to substantiate the claim, the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 3,91,615/-. 35. The assessee challenged the addition before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success. 36. We have carefully perused the documentary evidence brought on record, which are copies of ledger account of Excise Duty RG 23A Part II at pages 95 to 98 of the Paper Book. We find that on 20.08.2014, there is a reversal entry of sales return amounting to Rs. 2,61,180/- and on 07.01.2015, there is a debit of Rs. 1,36,723/- being service tax transferred to closure of factory. 37. As per Exhibit 104, the assessee has paid basic Excise Duty in the month of May 2014 and as per Exhibit 106 which is ledger account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
