AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 546
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act relevant for the Asstt. Year 2001-02. Since the issues involved in these appeals are inter-connected, hence, these are being disposed of by way of this common order. For the sake of convenience, we are dealing with Quantum Appeal being ITA No. 3519/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02) wherein, the following grounds have been raised:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in confirming the addition of Rs. 21,26,190/- incorrectly and unjustifiably made by the AO. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in rejecting the explanation filed by the assessee regarding the expenditure of Rs. 21,26,190/-. 3. On....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3(2)/142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee company. In response to the same, the AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and filed the necessary evidences for substantiating the claim of the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee company was engaged in the business of construction of properties. The company was also doing sale and purchase of properties. From the perusal of the Profit and Loss Account for the year consideration, AO was of the view that Assessee has shown expenditure of Rs. 51,59,170/- on account of construction of expenses and in its balance sheet as shown Rs. 21,26,190/- as construction expenses payable. To verify the same, the AO has written a letter to 03 parties i.e. M/s Capricorn Marb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year, that the books of accounts were lost and police report given and that the entire building accounts are reflected in the bank statements. AO did not accept the contention of the assessee and in the absence of supported evidences, the AO proceeded to make the addition of Rs. 21,26,190/- u/s. 68 of the Act. No doubt that AO has made other additions, which are not before us, hence, the same are not discussed here for the sake of brevity. The AO completed the assessment at Rs. 78,89,493/- u/s. 144 of the Act vide order dated 19.3.2004. Aggrieved with the assessment order dated 18.7.2005, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 18.7.2005 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee wherein the Ld. CIT(A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....part from contesting the addition on the ground that the same cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act. In support of his contention, he submitted that the said amount was paid to in the in the next assessment year and the same could not be paid during the year under consideration since the building was sold in the next assessment year. After receiving the payment of building sold, the payment was made and it was submitted that documentary proof is the books of the assessee which are audited and it shows that all these payments were made and the assessee also filed necessary evidence before the authorities below which was also accepted by the department in the next years for substantiating the claim of the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assesee stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee stated that AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly decided the issue in dispute against the assessee on the basis of the wrong facts and law. Therefore, the addition in dispute is liable to be cancelled and appeal filed by the Asessee should be accepted. As regard the levy of penalty, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that penalty is depending upon the decision of the quantum addition dealt in ITA No. 3519/Del/2005, if this Bench deleted the quantum addition in dispute by respectfully following the various Hon'ble High Courts, then the penalty in dispute may also be cancelled. 4. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and stated that the revenue authorities has passed a well reasoned order on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act could not be invoked to make the disallowance, because the said amount was paid to in the next assessment year and the same could not be paid during the year under consideration since the building was sold in the next assessment year. After receiving the payment of building sold, the payment was made and it was noted that the documentary proof is the books of the assessee which are audited and it shows that all these payments were made and the assessee also filed necessary evidence before the authorities below which was also accepted by the department in the next years for substantiating the claim of the assessee. We further note that the assessee has also filed the affidavit of Sh. Naresh Jain, Director of the assessee company. ....