TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 189
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tice was also issued through the Assessing Officer. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee. 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of builder and developers. 4. First we shall take up the appeal filed for A.Y. 2011-2. 5. The Assessing Officer originally completed the assessment for this year under section 143(3) on 26.3.2014. Later he reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act on noticing that a part of yatch expenses proposed to be disallowed in the original assessment order, was omitted to be disallowed. Accordingly he completed the assessment by making addition of Rs. 1,03,76,000/- relating to yatch finance expenses. 6. Before learned CIT(A), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... car 9. First issue relates to addition made under section 14A of the Act. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has invested in equity shares of various private limited companies to the tune of Rs. 20.86 crores. However, the assessee did not make any disallowance under section 14A. Accordingly the Assessing Officer, by invoking provisions of rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules disallowed a sum of Rs. 1,03,83,665/-. 10. Before learned CIT(A) the assessee submitted that it did not earn any exempt income and hence, there is no requirement of any disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The Learned CIT(A) noticed that the assessee received dividend income of Rs. 3,06,000/- but did not make any disallowance under section 14A of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctivity from Mumbai and hence high speed vessel was used to commute to that place. However, learned CIT(A) also took the view that the disallowance is justified. since the assessee did not furnish copy of MOU claimed to have been entered with VPPL. 14. We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. We noticed that the only connection between the assessee and yatch expenses is the MOU claimed to have been entered by assessee with VPPL. However, it appears that the assessee has not furnished copy of MOU before the tax authorities. We are unable to understand as to how the assessee could share profit and loss through MOU. In any case, there should not be any doubt that it is the responsibility of the assessee, to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsal Housing Finance & Leasing co Ltd (29 Taxman 303). The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the addition. 18. We heard Ld D.R on this issue. We notice that the assessee has relied upon a decision rendered by Mumbai bench of Tribunal in the case of C.R Developments (P) Ltd and also the decision rendered by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Neha Builders (2008)(296 ITR 661)(Guj.). However, we notice that the Ld CIT(A) has confirmed the addition without discussing anything on the above said case laws. In our view, the Ld CIT(A) should have dealt with the above said case laws relied upon by the assessee before confirming the addition. Accordingly, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of Ld CIT(A). ....