TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 355
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in rejecting appellant's contention that assessment order made by Assessing Officer was bad in law and void ab-initio on the ground that it ought to have been made u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, and not, as was done u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. 2. That without prejudice, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in relying upon the material seized in the case of search on M/s BPTP group of cases despite:- i) that such material had no nexus/relevance with the case of the appellant and, ii) that the CIT(A} himself holding that such material did not belong to the appellant. 3. That ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance u/s 40A(3) in respect of which no deduction was claimed by the appellant. 5.1 That even on merits the disallowance was not justified. 6. That the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXIII, New Delhi are bad in law and void ab-initio." 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : Assessee company belongs to BPTP Group which is into the real estate business in the NCR area. A search operation was carried out on BPTP and some of its group companies on 15.11.2017 by Directorate of Investigation, Delhi, however no search was carried out on the assessee company. Howev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid in cash in excess of the limit provided u/s 40A(3). Declining the explanation made by the assessee, AO disallowed 20% of Rs. 2,00,000/- i.e. Rs. 40,000/- and made addition thereof to the total income of the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. 6. Ld. AR for the assessee challenging the impugned disallowance contended inter alia that in view of the Collaboration Agreement entered into between the assessee and M/s. Countrywide Promoters (P) Ltd. (CWPPL), available at pages 24 to 36 of the paper book, the assessee company has received reimbursement of all amounts paid relating to transactions of purchase of land, stamp duty, registration charges etc. as per Clause 3(b) of the Agreement; that such paymen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t are not attracted. 10. Moreover, assessee company has proved on record that the payment in question was mere reimbursement made by CWPPL. Furthermore, purchase of land in the instant case was not treated as stock-in-trade. Moreover, para 3(b) of the Collaboration Agreement, available at page 27 of the paper book, categorically provides that CWPPL shall reimburse all costs and expenses incurred by the assessee with respect to the acquisition of the said land and accordingly in the books of account which have otherwise been accepted by the Revenue, the said amount received from CWPPL was shown as reimbursement. 11. Identical issue has been decided by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case cited as M/s. Westland Developers Pvt. ....