TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (2) TMI 1474
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner of Income-tax(Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) erred in enhancing the assessment and in determining the total income of the appellant society at Rs. 13,62,550/- as against the income determined by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 11,09,980/.-. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) erred in holding that by recomputing the revised total income as per the report submitted by the Assessing Officer, the dispute rose on account of disallowance of Rs. 4,92,809/- is settled. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) ought to have seen that the Assessing Officer is not correct in disallowing a sum of Rs. 4,92,809/- as the proportionate expendit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....loss, the assessee has incurred total expenditure of Rs. 27,49,295/-. The Assessing officer, after discussion with the administrative officer and taking his consent proposed to disallow Rs. 4,92,809/- out of this expenditure claimed by the assessee. However, while computing the income, he made an error. Instead of adding a sum of Rs. 4,92,809/- which is towards disallowance of expenditure, the assessing officer made a deduction of this amount from the income and thus there was an error in the computation of income made by assessing officer. The Assessing Officer also assessed the interest on Fixed Deposits and rental income received on 'hoarding' by the assessee as 'income from other sources', as against the claim of the assessee for assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ness as returned (-) Rs.6,78,752/- Less: addition proposed in the Assessment order as agreed by the Assessee Rs.4,92,809/- (-)Rs.1,85,943/- Add: income from hoardings Rs.51,702/- (-) Rs. 2,37,645/- Gross Total income Rs.16,66,791/- Less: 80P deduction as allowed by assessing officer Rs.3,04,240/- /- Rs.13,62,551 4.1. Thus, the above computation of income resulted in enhancement of assessment, by rectifying the mistakes in the computation made by the Assessing Officer, by adopting the loss from business making the disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 4,92,809, and also by holding that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his amount of Rs. 1,85,943/- being 'business loss' should have been reduced from the Gross total income. Further, the income from hoarding was wrongly treated by the assessee as business income, the CIT(A) corrected this error and treated this income under head 'income from other sources' which is resulted in increase of business loss by Rs. 51,702/- and increase of 'income from other sources' by Rs. 51,702/-. Regarding the first contention of the assessee's counsel is with reference to disallowance of Rs. 4,92,809/-, in our opinion, this is an agreed addition. The plea of the assessee cannot be accepted because the income was assessed by the assessing officer on the basis of disallowance accepted by the assessee in the course of assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an honest disclosure and such disallowance cannot be deleted as the assessee is bound by that disallowance and the assessee cannot have any grievance against the assessee's own admission at this point of time. The case law relied by the learned departmental representative in the case of Ramesh Chandra & Company Vs. CIT (168 ITR 375) (Bom), Ramalal Kamdar Vs. CIT (108 ITR ) (Mds.), Mahesh B Shah Vs. ACIT (238 ITR 130 (Ker), Jayasree Chit Funds and Services (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (127 ITR 740) (Ker), Turner Morison and Co. Ltd. Vs. Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. (85 ITR 607) (SC), Sterling Machine Tools Vs. CIT (123 ITR 261) (Bom), Jivatial Purtapshi Vs CIT (65 ITR 261) (Bom.) are also supports our view. 6. The next contention of the assessee'....