TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 339
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not adjudicating grounds of appeal no.1 & 2 stating that they are general in nature is bad in law. The same is passed without considering the facts and details submitted by your appellant and hence same be quashed. 2) The learned CIT is not justified in confirming disallowance made by the assessing officer u/s.40(a)(ia) of Income tax Act in respect of TDS deducted in March, 2005 and paid before due date of furnishing return of income u/s.139(1) of Income tax Act. Your appellant craves for leave to alter/withdraw/amend/modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laced on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Saurastra Cement & Chemical Co.Ltd. reported at (1973) 91 ITR 170 (Guj.). The ld.counsel for the assessee had also relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Specialty Paper Ltd. reported at (1982) 133 ITR 879(Guj.). In support of this contention, once the rights have been acquired in the property, the assessee had commenced the business and, therefore, the loss claimed ought to have allowed. He submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee. 3.1. On the contrary, the ld.Sr.DR supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the order of the ld.CIT(A) is ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... right in land 8046661/- Add : Land development expense of survey no. 442/1/A at Tarsali 490034/- 8536695/- Less : Purchase return Cancellation of Banakhat at Survey No. 442/1/B 270300/- Closing stock as on 31.03.2005 8266395/- The assessee had explained the same in para(1) of our letter dated 23.11.2007. Copy of the same is enclosed herewith along with annexures. Also vide submission dated 28.12.2007 the appellant had explained in detail that in order to carry out the business activity, the purchase of property rights in land and held the same as stock in trade for the purpose of resell in future is starting point of commencement of business of the assessee. The assessee is relying on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 490034/-. The net addition in property right in land during the year is Rs. 219734/-. In order to carry out the business, the appellant had taken unsecured loan in earlier financial year and provided interest in the books of accounts and claimed the same as deduction u/s 36(i)(iii) of Income Tax Act. Also, during the financial year, the appellant had incurred the administrative expense as under : Bank Charges Rs. 1479/- Account writing fees Rs. 2000/- Office Expense Rs. 9360/- Salary to Staff Rs. 24000/- Total Rs. 36839/- The appellant had claimed the above expense u/s. 37 of Income Tax Act. Also, the assessee had provided interest on partners capital of Rs. 119448/- and claimed the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lier years of Rs. 2585474/- had paid the tax on balance amount of Rs. 2339360/-. Copy of computation of income along with acknowledgement of return filed of A.Y. 2008-09 is enclosed herewith. In view of the above we request your honor to consider our above submission and allow the appellants claim in this respect." 4.2. From the order of the ld.CIT(A), it is ex-facie evident that the submissions of the assessee were not considered. In our considered view, the ld.CIT(A) ought to have adverted to the submissions of the assessee and passed a speaking order. Therefore, the order of the ld.CIT(A) is hereby set aside and ground No.1 of assessee's appeal is restored back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for decision afresh by way of a speaking order. N....