https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770184 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770184 Disallowance of deduction made u/s 80IA - non-filing of the audit report in Form 10CCB & relevant agreements and assessee is a works contractor & not engaged in development & maintenance of infrastructure facility - CIT(A) confirmed the above disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee has not furnished prescribed audit report in Form 10CCB - HELD THAT:- As before us it was the claim of the assessee that Form 10CCB was filed during the course of assessment proceedings & the agreements were also produced but the Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT(A) has not accepted this fact and therefore the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed by CIT(A). We find that Ld. AR of the assessee produced an affidavit duly sworn in by the Chief Financial Officer of the assessee company stating that Form 10CCB was filed during the course of assessment proceedings and the same is still available in the original assessment case records. It is also the contention of the assessee that this fact was revealed when the assessee sought permission of inspection of original assessment case records which was called at the direction of this Tribunal. We find in the affidavit that the assessee also claimed that the relevant agreements/documents were also handed over to the Assessing Officer physically as well as in Pen Drive. We deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by CIT(A) with regard to ground no.4 only i.e. in respect of disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IA and remand the matter back to him with a direction to decide this limited issue only, afresh, as per fact and law, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, this ground no.4 raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Addition u/s 2(22)(e) - HELD THAT:- In the catena of judgements referred by Ld. Counsel for the assessee as well as in the impugned order, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gopal And Sons (HUF) [2017 (1) TMI 331 - SUPREME COURT] has not been considered. Under these given facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to remit back the issue of addition for deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the IT Act back to the file of CIT(A) who shall examine the facts in the light of above judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gopal And Sons (HUF) (supra) and shall also conduct necessary enquiry to examine about the application of alleged funds received by the company. Before parting, we also notice that one of the ground raised by the assessee is that the transaction between the two companies i.e. one which gave the alleged some and one which received the alleged sum are in the nature of business transactions, however, as to whether the company which has given the loan is into lending business or not, this aspect also needs to be considered by Ld. CIT(A) while carrying out the proceedings of examination of the issue of addition for deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the IT Act. Agricultural income - We find that similar claim of agricultural income was allowed in earlier years and the ownership of substantial agricultural land was also accepted, accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) wherein he allowed the relief of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Thus, this ground no.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Addition on account of various expenses - HELD THAT:- We find that the AO has made ad-hoc/estimated disallowance and no specific instance was pointed out and accordingly Ld. CIT(A) gave relief by estimating the reasonable disallowance and therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) wherein he has restricted the addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- to Rs. 20,00,000/- thereby allowing relief of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the assessee on account of various expenses made on ad-hoc basis. Thus, the ground no.3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 05 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530