9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the deed of Assignment it is clear that the said deed of Assignment entered with M/s. Samsun Industries Pvt. Ltd. anticipating the order of MIDC to transfer the leasehold rights in favour of M/s. Samsun Industries Pvt. Ltd. in pursuance of letter dated 18-03-2015. Therefore, we find the arguments of ld. DR as not acceptable in view of the decision of case of Thiruvengada Pillai (supra) and reject his contention that the stamp paper on which the Assignment deed dated 10-04-2015 was executed as invalid. Within one year criteria prior to purchase of residential bungalow - In the present case, Assignment deed dated 10-04-2015 entered by the assessee with M/s. Samsun Industries Pvt. Ltd. for transfer of his leasehold rights on two plots gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Dr. Vardhaman Jain For the Revenue : Shri Sardar Singh Meena ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 18-11-2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ( NFAC ) for assessment year 2016-17. 2. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the finding of CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in confirming the order of AO in denying the deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in open gym equipment and also derives income from salary, business and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of his rights in favour of M/s. Samsun Industries Pvt. Ltd. We note that the contention of ld. AR is that, the assessee made an application to MIDC seeking to permit the assessee to transfer his lease rights to some other entity on 18-03-2015 and in pursuance of such, anticipating favorable order in his favour entered into deed of Assignment on 10-04-2015 which is within one year prior to the purchase of residential bungalow on 05-05- 2014. The ld. DR did not agree for the said proposition made by the ld. AR and vehemently argued that the stamp paper was purchased on 06-09- 2014 and made the Assignment deed on 10-04-2015 which is beyond six months of validity of the said stamp paper. He argued that the AO rightly disbelieved the said Assig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on an examination of page 26, para No. (ii) it is clear that the said deed of Assignment entered with M/s. Samsun Industries Pvt. Ltd. anticipating the order of MIDC to transfer the leasehold rights in favour of M/s. Samsun Industries Pvt. Ltd. in pursuance of letter dated 18-03-2015. Therefore, we find the arguments of ld. DR as not acceptable in view of the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Thiruvengada Pillai (supra) and reject his contention that the stamp paper on which the Assignment deed dated 10-04-2015 was executed as invalid. 6. In the present case, the Assignment deed dated 10-04-2015 entered by the assessee with M/s. Samsun Industries Pvt. Ltd. for transfer of his leasehold rights on two plots granted by the MI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned that the said wrong entry has been rectified in the next subsequent year by reversing the same. The AO did not satisfy with the explanation of the assessee and issued show cause notice why an amount of Rs. 5,01,45,330/- should not be added to the total income of the assessee on account of sundry creditors. According to the AO, the assessee reiterated the same submissions and contended that he was not aware about the technicalities of accounting as the said entry was passed by his Chartered Accountant. According to the AO, the sundry creditors are appearing on the liability side of the Balance sheet as there was no proper explanation, added the said amount to the total income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) observed that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e AO in his order at Page No. 7 of the assessment order. We note that the signatures of assessee and auditor appended digitally to the said profit and loss account which must have guided the AO to disbelieve the same. On an examination of trading account and profit and loss account which are at page No. 81 of the paper book shows no change in profit as well as net profit after reversing or rectifying the wrong entry. Further, on an examination of page No. 33 of the paper book, wherein, the assessee filed unsigned reconciliation of purchases with regard to VAT return / manufacturing trading profit and loss account for the F.Y. 2015-16 which shows the purchases as per manufacturing trading account to an extent of Rs. 8,74,06,260/-. Admittedly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
