9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HAJAN For the Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Jain Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal, Advs. For the Respondents Through: Mr. Shailendera Singh, Adv. O R D E R CM No.135/2023 (for exemption) 1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 58/2023 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that the demand of tax raised pursuant to the assessment order dated 30.09.2021, passed under Section 143(3)/144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the assessment year 2017-18, be stayed. 4. It was the petitioner s contention that the assessment order is ex facie erroneous and untenable in law. This Court briefly examined the said contentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it is seen that the order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the Jurisdictional Commissioner does not consider the said aspect. 7. We have briefly examined the assessment order in view of the petitioner's contention that the said order is ex-facie erroneous. 8. The assessee is engaged in running a training school under the name of School of Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering which provides aircraft maintenance training to students. The assessee had declared a loss of ₹2,81,59,550/- in its return for the relevant assessment year 2017-2018. However, the Assessing Officer has raised the demand by making addition of ₹46,07,78,600 as unexplained income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 03.02.2017 towards consideration for acquiring leasehold rights of an immovable property, as per Conveyance/Transfer Deed. The assessee has acquired lease hold rights of immovable property, i.e. Institution Plot No. 25/3, Sector Knowledge Park-III, Greater Noida, Distt- Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh - 201308 at declared value of Rs. 46,07,78,600/- in the financial year. Further, the assessee has submitted that the movable property has been transferred by IGEPL to the assessee company at the written down value on the date of transfer but he has not submitted satisfactory supporting documentary evidences in this regard. Further the assessee has submitted that value of immovable property has been taken at the fair market value of the lan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the opinion of the [Assessing Officer], satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income- tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year : [Provided that where the assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interested), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee-company shall be deemed to be not satisfactory, unless- (a) the person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such company also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited; and (b) such explanation in the opinion of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the stated consideration for the same, but not the entire stated consideration. However, he submits that since the petitioner has filed an appeal, it may be proper for the Appellate Authority to examine the petitioner s challenge, as the petitioner s prayer in the present petition is limited to seeking a stay of the impugned demand. 6. Since it is apparent that the demand raised is untenable, we find that the present petition is a fit case for staying the impugned demand in its entirety. We also consider it apposite to direct the Appellate Authority (through National Faceless Appeal Centre) to consider the petitioner s appeal and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, within a period of four weeks from today ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
