TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 351
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omes etc. can be summarized as under : ITA Nos. A. Y. ROI filed on Returned Income Assessment dt. Assessed Income Dt. of orders of CIT(A) 4119/M/2014 2006-07 14. 03. 2008 2, 00, 532/- 23. 12. 2008 25, 00, 530/- 12. 03. 2014 1314/M/2011 2006-07 14. 03. 2008 2, 00, 532/- 23. 12. 2008 25, 00, 530/- 03. 01. 2011 1315/M/2011 2007-08 21. 10. 2007 NIL 10. 11. 2009 3, 50, 000/- 04. 12. 2010 ITA 1314/Mum/2011-AY. 06-07: 2. The effective Ground of appeal is about confirming the earnest money amount of Rs. 23. 00 lakhs. During the assessment proceedings , the AO asked the assessee to file confirmation of loans and bank statements etc. When asked to explain the amount of Rs. 23. 00 lacs, it was stated that proprietary conc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e confirmed the order of the AO. 4. During the course of hearing before us, the Authorised Representative(AR)contended that the assessee had entered into an agreement with MDC, that he had received Rs. 23. 00 lacs as earnest money, that MDC was to pay Rs. 2. 77 crores later on in instalments, that because of the dispute with MDC the transaction failed, that the assessee had returned back the money to MDC, that earnest money was received through banking channels, that court proceedings are going on between the assessee and MDC, that because of the police case assessee was not in a position to obtain confirmation from MDC, that it was not a fit case for invoking provisions of section 68 of the Act. Departmental Representative (DR) supported ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., AY. 2006-07: 6. The only Ground, raised by the AO, is about deleting the penalty of Rs. 6. 40 lacs levied by the AO on issue of addition of Rs. 23 lacs made u/s. 68 of the Act. While deciding the quantum appeal (paragraphs 2-5), we have deleted the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the FAA for the disputed amount i. e. Rs. 23lacs. 7. We find that the FAA had considered the FIR, order of the Metropolitan Magistrate and payment made by MDC during the year and in the subsequent years, while deciding the penalty appeal. Considering these facts, he had deleted the penalty imposed by AO u/s. 271 (1) (c)of the Act. As we have deleted the addition made by the AO, while deciding the quantum appeal, so, penalty would not survive. Confirmin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the expenses also could not be attributed to business service centre. The FAA referred to case of Lahore Electric Supply Co. (60ITR1);Inderchand Hariram (23 ITR 437); Sherwani Brothers & Co. (23ITR51); and National Syndicate (41 ITR 225) and upheld the order of the AO. 9. Before us, the AR sated that assessee was running a business centre, that it had earned income, and had incurred expense from the business centre/for running the business centre, that income from the business centre has gone down during the year under consideration as compared to last year, that correspondingly expenses had also reduced, that in the earlier year(AY-05-06) the AO had allowed major portion of identical expenses. The DR supported the order of the FAA. 1....