TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 401
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessing officer (for short the AO) u/s 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act'). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company engaged in the business of development of properties, filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring nil income. The AO passed assessment order u/s 143 (3) of the Act, and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 69,56,880/- after making addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- by rejecting the claim of payment made to Kamladevi K Agarwal towards full and final consideration for handing over the vacant possession of Room No. 1, Ground Floor, Dongarsi Road Malabar Hill, Mumbai and an amount of Rs. 11,56,879/- rejecting the claim of payment made to Bomba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as full and final consideration for handing over vacant possession of its property, despite the fact that the Appellant had not claimed the said payment/expenditure in its Profit and Loss account/computation of income and had merely capitalized the said amount in the schedule of fixed assets in its Balance sheet, on which no depreciation had been claimed. 3. Addition of payment to Bombay Municipal School and Capitalised in books of accounts - Rs. 2,19,810/- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making an addition to the extent of Rs. 2,19,810/- being 19% of the payment (of Rs. 11,56,879) made to Bombay Municipal School for surrendering the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in confirming the interest levied by the Ld. AO u/s 234B of the Act and the said levy of interest being wholly unjustified, ought to be deleted. 6. Inadequate Opportunity The Ld. CIT (A) and Ld. AO erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, in passing their respective orders u/s 250 and u/s 143 (3) of the Act providing the Appellant sufficient and adequate opportunity, in breach of the principles of natural justice and in arriving at conclusions therein based on incorrect factual averments/allegations and therefore, the said orders, being bad in law are liable to be quashed. 4. Ground No. 1 of the appeal is of general nature, hence does not require separate adjudication. 5. Vide Ground No. 2 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther pointed out that the appellant has not claimed the said payment/expenditure in its profit and loss account/computation of income and only capitalized the said amount in the schedule of fixed assets in its balance sheet. Further, the assessee had not claimed any depreciation. Accordingly, the AR submitted the details. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supporting the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) submitted that since the payment was made in the month of April 2009, the Ld. CIT (A) has rightly confirmed the findings of the AO. 7. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record in the light of the rival contentions. We notice that the authorities below have rejec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the balance sheet. 9. On the other hand, the Ld. DR pointed out that the payment was made in the name of Shri Subhash Thakkar, who was neither Director of the Company nor was having any relation with the assessee company. The Ld. CIT (A) has permitted capitalization to the extent of Rs. 9,37,072/- only which was about 81% of the amount paid on the ground that the balance of 19% was owned by C.K. Thakkar. The payment was made on the ground of commercial expediency as the appellant was developing the project as a business, however, the said co-owner C.K. Thakkar has no business interest. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record in the light of the respective contentions of the parties. As pointed out ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made addition of the said amount on the ground that the assessee has failed to produce any evidence to substantiate its claim. Before the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee contended that the loan in question was received from C.K. Thakkar, director of the company, which was transferred to the bank account of the assessee company on different dates. The assessee further contended that since Mr. C.K. Thakkar was a non-resident therefore, could not furnish the confirmation before the AO. The assessee furnished the confirmation from C.K. Thakkar as additional evidence. Moreover, the assessee has furnished the copy of certificate issued by the Chief Manager, NRI Branch, Bank of Baroda, Mumbai confirming that Sh. C.K. Thakkar who was maintaining NRE a....