9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act") for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17 with the delay of 167 days. The assessee filed affidavit for condonation of delay, submitting that the assessee could not file appeal on time due to Covid pandemic and lockdown imposed by the Government. The assessee further submitted that he was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the appeal within time, therefore, pleaded to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2. I have heard the Ld.AR and gone through the affidavit filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. It is evident that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 10.02.2020 was served on the assessee on 13.02.2020 and the assessee ought to have filed appeal against the said order on or before 09.04.2020. The assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the grounds of appeal. Later, the grounds of appeal were revised, as the original grounds of appeal filed along with Form 36 are argumentative and not in accordance with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules. The revised grounds are as follows : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining to the extent of Rs. 6,87,939, the addition of Rs. 13,75,878 made by the assessing officer towards ad-hoc disallowance @10% of the marketing commission and site development expenses. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in enhancing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd. 9. I have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The assessee has shown to have incurred site development expenses at Rs. 75,47,115/- and marketing staff commission at Rs. 62,11,670/-. The assessee was asked to produce details of targets given to each marketing staff, targets achieved by them, commission paid to each representative, complete addresses and also to produce the bills / invoices towards site development expenses during assessment / appeal proceedings. But the assessee failed to produce the same except ledger account extracts of these expenditure and self-made vouchers either during the assessment or appellate proceedings. Hence, the AO disallowed 10% of the said expenditure as the assessee fai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts in cash for purchase of plots were made at the time of agreements as the sellers insisted for part payment of cash, which was paid after withdrawing the amounts from the bank account hence, no disallowance u/s 40A(3) is warranted. 11. Per contra, the Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A). He pleaded to uphold the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee on this ground. 12. I have heard both the parties and gone through the sale deeds filed in the paper book and other relevant records, from which it is evident that the assessee had made cash payments of Rs. 5,60,000/- and Rs. 3,60,000/- amounting to Rs. 9,20,000/- at the time of agreement on two occasions. There is no merit in the argument of the Ld.AR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
