9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 88,04,000 given to Sai Nibedita Realcon (P) Ltd. for construction of the school building as diversification of fund and therefore the additions of 88,04,000 is liable to be deleted. 2. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhubaneswar is not correct in taxing the notional interest in view of the fact that the real income of trust is taxable not the notional income, therefore the enhancement of the income of 8,80,000 is liable to be deleted. 3. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has committed an error of law in enhancing the income of the appellant without being giving a show cause notice or a reasonable opportunity of being heard as per the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... director of M/s Sai Nibedita Realcon Pvt.Ltd. and is wife of management trustee of the assessee Trust Sri Chandan Kumar Behera and the said advance was given for the purchase of land. Since the land deal was not materialized, the AO observed that there is diversion of funds and issued show cause notice, whereas the assessee filed explanations on 5.11.2013, which is reflected in the assessment order. Ld. AR substantiated the submissions which is referred as under :- With reference to your notice Dtd. 24th December, 2012, I have to state that Rs. 88,04,000/- is given to Sai Nibedita Realcon P. Ltd. for purchase of land. A copy of the board resolution and a copy of the agreement with the said company is also furnished to you in this regard. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43(3) of the Act dated 16.1.2013. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings the ld. AR of the assessee appeared and argued the grounds and reiterated the submissions made before the AO. The ld. CIT(A) considered the findings of AO and the grounds dealt independently on each ground and called for various information which was submitted by the assessee and further discussed elaborately at pages 9 to 19 of its order and enhanced the income to the extent of Rs. 96,84,000/- by making addition of 10% of advances as interest income and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer may select any return for scrutiny after recording the reason and obtaining approval of the CCIT/DGIT. The cases under this category should be selected if, there are compelling reasons and the case is not selected through CASS. These cases should be watched by CCIT/CIT in respect of the quality of assessment." Ld. AR could not prove that there is lack of jurisdiction of the AO or does not have approval of CIT for selection of scrutiny except making the submissions with supporting guidelines. On the query from the bench why the case of the assessee does not fall under clause (g) as discussed above. The explanations of ld. AR are not convincing to us and accordingly, we are not inclined to accept the reasons explained by the ld. AR on g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
