TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 63
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the six months of issue of such post dated cheques i.e. from the date of execution of sale-deed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that additional payment made to the owners of the land is allowable as in expenses u/s 37 of the Act. 3. The order of the CIT(A) is errenous and is not tenable on facts and in law." 3. The return of income for the A.Y. 2009-10 was filed on 18/09/2010 declaring total loss at Rs. 9,109/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) on 01/11/2010. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny & notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, dated 19/08/2011 was duly served upon the assessee by speed post. In res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the same was added to the income of the assessee being paid out of its undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer further made addition by holding that sum of Rs. 52,51,250/- shown by the assessee as additional payment made to the farmers in its books of account is nothing but a made up affair and the payments made are not genuine and hence not admissible. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 52,51,250/- was added to the income of the assessee on a/c of additional payments. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Revenue is before us. 5. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the additions made by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en in the said order dated 14.09.2015 in para 11 & 12 read as under:- "11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts has already been adjudicated by the ITAT Delhi Bnech 'C', New Delhi in the case of ACIT vs. M/s IAG Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein vide order dated 31.10.2014, the relevant findings are given in para 5 which read as under: "5 We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused relevant material placed before us. At the outset, the ground raised by the Revenue is misconceived because learned CIT(A) has not deleted the addition of Rs. 5,06,625/- but has only direc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... following the aforesaid referred to order dated 31.10.2014, we do not see any valid ground to interfere with the findings given by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we do not see any merit in the grounds of the assessee as well as the department, on this issue." 11.So, respectfully following the aforesaid order dated 14.09.2015, the impugned addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is also deleted." The issue in present case also is identical and Ground No. 1 is in favour of the assessee by this Tribunal. It was very well proved that the assessee was used to pay part payments of the sale consideration in respect of the land purchased at the time of execution of the sale-deed and the payments of balance sale consideration were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Revenue Authority argued that this is to decide what constitutes infraction of other provisions of law. No question of law arises, therefore, on this issue." The decision of the Hon'ble High Court is from the Tribunal's decision in case of ACIT vs. Vasundra Promoters (P) Ltd. (ITA No. 1527 & 1758/Del/2013 order dated 13.04.2017. The Tribunal held as under: "11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant findings given in the impugned orders as well as the material referred to before us. The first and foremost thing which is quite apparent from the perusal of the profit and loss account is that assessee has not claimed any such expenses for sums aggregating to Rs. 1,05,86,958/-, nor it has been claimed in the computati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e facts of the present case the material issue is that the said expenditure was never claimed as assessee's business expenditure the occasion to make a disallowance of the same does not arise. On this fact there is no dispute as admittedly the expenditure was never claimed as an expense by the assessee and consequently has not been routed through its P&L A/c, In the circumstances, the occasion to make an addition of the same by way of a disallowance in these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case does not arise. The reasoning and finding given while considering the arguments qua Ground No. 4 would fully apply here also. The difference that here the entire amount is added u/s 37 as opposed to part of the expenditure disallowed u/s 40A(....