2017 (5) TMI 157

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ad. 3. Facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in the business of builder and development of the properties and filed its return of income on 15.10.2010 declaring an income of Rs.NIL, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were issued under section 143(2) and 142(1) and duly served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment proceeding, the AO found that the assessee firm has claimed expenses to the tune of Rs. 12,27,085/- on account of FSI /TDR written off. The AO vide ordersheet entry dated 17.10.2012, called upon the assessee to explain as to why the amount of FSI written off during the year should no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the AO as under : "4.3.4. Under these circumstances, it is not dear as to how the appellant is claiming loss of Rs. 12,27,085/* on write off of said FSI/TDRs admeasuring 380 sq.mt, which were actually granted to Akruti Nirman Pvt. Ltd. rather than the appellant. The appellant has not placed on record even an iota of evidence to demonstrate as to how and when it had acquired FSI stock/TDR of 380 sq.mt. of Shiv Shakti project which is now claimed to have been written off in the books of account. The averment of Shri Vyomesh Shah (MD of M/s.Hubtown Ltd. which was formerly known as Akruti Nirman Pvt. Ltd.) made in his Affidavit reproduced above that the appellant "had undertaken" Shiv Shakti project cannot be accepted in the background of pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt as stock in trade since the formation of the firm and as the said TOR could not be recovered and was rightly written off by the assessee. The Id. AR placed before us the necessary evidences qua the accrual of TDR and further bringing into the firm by stating that these were not before the authorities below. Lastly the Id AR submitted that in view of these facts the appeal of the assessee should be allowed. On the other hand the ld.DR pressed two points namely that the TORs were accrued in favour of partner MI5 Akruti Nirman Pvt Ltd and not the assessee and second, all the evidences were very old which were not before the authorities below which required verification at the level of AO and therefore the case should be restored to the file....