AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1088
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."Period Cost" and such allowable in the year of its incurrence." 02. ITA No. 631/Mum/2022 is filed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, 5(4), Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) against the same order raising following grounds of appeal:- "(1) Whether the Ld. CITIA) erred in admitting additional evidence under rule 46A despite the fact Whether the repeated opportunities were given to the assessee by the AO and he was not prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence as the land is an agricultural land. (2) Whether the Ld. CITA) erred in admitting additional evidences in contravention of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi high Court in the case of CIT V. Manish Build Well Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 204 TAXMAN 106 that additional evidence can be produced at first appellate stage only when conditions stipulated in rule 46A are satisfied. (3) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,03,96,000/ u/s. 40(a)(ia) on account of Agricultural land on the basis of additional evidence submitted by the assessee without providing opportunity to the Assessing Officer of rebuttal under rule 46A. (4) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4,165/- vide Assessment order dated 29 December 2017 passed under Section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act. 06. Assessee preferred appeal before learned CIT (A), who i. Deleted the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for the reasons that there was no tax deductible under Section 194-IA of the Act as the impugned land purchased by assessee is an agricultural land. ii. With respect to the addition of Rs.1,78,55,000/- under Section 69C of the Act, he deleted the addition holding that in case of group concerns settlement commission passed an order wherein the on-money as well as expenditure is already included and therefore, no separate addition in the hands of the assessee can be made. Accordingly, he deleted the addition. iii. With respect to the addition of Rs.3,68,000/- on account of undisclosed income, he confirmed the addition, he held that the order of settlement commission did not include above sum. 07. The Revenue is in appeal before us. As per ground no.1- 5 of the appeal, the learned Assessing Officer is aggrieved wherein it has been held by the learned CIT (A) that payment made by the assessee for purchase of land amounting to Rs.7,03,96,000/- is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 194-IA of the Act, where agricultural land is excluded from the rigors of TDS. He referred to the explanation (a) to section 194IA , where the agricultural land is defined. Therefore, according to him, the learned CIT (A) has correctly deleted the addition. 010. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The learned CIT (A) dealt with the above issue as under:- "5.3 The findings of the AO in the assessment order and the submission made by the appellant have been considered. During the year under consideration, the Appellant has made payment of Rs. 7,03,96,000/- towards purchase of land at Bherle, Vardoli and Bhinegrwadi in Panvel Taluka. The appellant has not deducted TDS considering the land being an agricultural land. On the other hand, the AO has relied upon a letter from Survey of India in which it was stated that the land at Bherle, Vardoli and Bhngerwadi falls within 8 kms of Panvel Municipal limits. Therefore, the AO has held the land as Non agricultural land within the meaning of section 2(1A) of the IT Act. Accordingly, the AO has made disallowance of Rs.7,03,96,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. During the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled a letter from Sub Engineer Raigarh Zilla Parishad dated 9.8 2019 certifying that Vardoli, Bhingerwadi and Bherle of Panvel Taluka are at a distances of 11,90. 10.00, and 10.00 km from the limits of Panvel City Municipal Corporation. A map of Panvel City Municipal Corporation was also issued which has been filed along with Panvel Taluka Map. Google Maps shows the distance by road as about 12 km. The aerial distance of the Google map is closer to 8 kms. By whatever method is adopted, the land in question is more than 6 km from the limits of Panvel City Municipal Corporation. The land in question here is at Bherle. Thus the land at Bherle, Vardoli would not fall under definition of capital asset u/s 2(14) (iii) (b) (ll). Hence ground of appeal no 2 and 3 are allowed." Similar order was passed by My Predecessor in the case of Mr. Navin Makhija for A.Y.2014-15 in appeal no.CIT(A)-53/IT-490/DCC-5(4)/2017-18 order dt. 4.11.2019 and in the case of Mr. Sanjay Chabbaria for A.Y.2014-15 order dt.30.10.2019 in appeal no. CIT(A)-53/IT-572/DCCC-5(4)/2017-18. All the argument, which have been made by the appellant in the present appeal, were also made before the CIT(A) in the case of Shr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... find that the impugned land is an agricultural land and no tax is required to be deducted on purchase of land under Section 194-IA of the Act. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the learned CIT (A) on this count and dismissed grounds no.1 to 5 of the appeal of the Revenue. 012. Ground no. 6 to 10 of Revenue's appeal is with respect to the deletion of addition under Section 69C of the Act. 013. The brief facts of the case show that certain data was perused by the learned Assessing Officer, which was recorded in cloud. There were details of unexplained expenditure with respect to 'Panvel' project. It was found that the total expenses of Rs. 1,78,65,000/- and Rs.1,79,51,000/- were incurred in F.Ys. 2014-15 and 2015-16. Therefore, assessee was asked that why the above amount should not be added under Section 69C of the Act. Assessee explained that income of Rs.69.112 crores was offered as an additional income pertaining to various project of Wadhwa Group. The details were maintained group as a whole and there were separate data entity wise. On money income offered in case of all group covers above expenditure and therefore, the addition under Section 69C of the Act cannot be made.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00 was also considered for capitalization. The settlement commission allowed the same. Therefore, We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (A) in deleting the above addition and therefore, ground no.6 to 10 of the appeal is dismissed. 018. In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2015-16 is dismissed. 019. Coming to the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 584/Mum/2022 wherein the addition of Rs.3,68,000/- on account of undisclosed income was confirmed. 020. The fact shows that unaccounted cash receipt of Rs.4 lacs found out of which only Rs.32,000/- was offered in the return of income. Assessing Officer made the addition to the extent of Rs.3,68,000/-. On appeal before the learned CIT (A), the same was confirmed. The learned Authorized Representative submitted that the addition has wrongly made. 021. The learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the lower authorities. 022. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The fact shows that during the course of search it was found that Group was maintaining the record of unaccounted cash receipts and payments on a cloud based....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....want to pursue the same. Accordingly, ITA No.585/Mum/2022 is dismissed. 028. Coming to the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer, both the parties confirmed that all the grounds raised therein are identical to ground nos. 6 to 10 in appeal of the learned Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2015-16. 029. On careful consideration, we find that while deciding the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2015-16, we have directed the learned Assessing Officer to delete the addition. As there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case following our order for A.Y. 2015-16, we confirm the order of the learned CIT (A) and dismissed the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer. 030. Accordingly, both the appeals, of the learned Assessing Officer as well as assessee for A.Y. 2016-17, are dismissed. A.Y. 2014-15 031. ITA No. 851/Mum/2022 is filed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai against the order passed the CIT (A)-53, Mumbai dated 23rd January, 2022, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- "(1) That the Ld.CIT (A) erred in admitting additional evidences under rule 46A despite the fact that the repeated opportunities were given to the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w. Rule 80D on the basis that the same is not to be applied if no exempt income is earned during the year and neither can it exceed the quantum of exempt income earned during the year, ignoring the clear provisions of the Act and as clarified by the CBDT Circular No. 05/2014 dated 11.02.2014. (9) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition u/s. 68 of Rs.4,00,00,000/- ignoring the fact that the debenture holders- M/s. Silfix Tradelink Private Ltd (STPL) and M/s. Sitram Investment Limited were dummy companies as per finding of Investigation Wing, Kolkata and assessee has also failed to prove the genuineness of transaction in respect of debenture issued amounts to Rs. 4,00,00,000/- to above dummy parties. 10) The Applicant craves to leave, to add, to amend and/or to alter any of the ground of appeal, if need be." 032. The brief fact of the case shows that assessee filed its return of income on 17th December 2016 declaring nil income. Due to search on 16th December 2015, notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued on 30th September 2016. It was found that assessee has purchased land which is not an agricultura....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rty has shown the above investments. With respect to M/s. Silfix Tradelink Private Ltd (STPL) 150 debentures of Rs.1 lac each were allotted on 25th February, 2014 for Rs.1.5 crores similarly same were redeemed and interest on debentures was paid after tax deducted at source. From no.26AS of both the parties were also produced which also reflected receipt of interest. In the remand proceedings, the assessee produced all the evidences, which proved the identity and creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction, and therefore, the addition was deleted. 034. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was allowed and hence, the learned Assessing Officer is in appeal before us. 035. Ground nos. 1 to 5 of the appeal is with respect to disallowance under Section 40a(ia) of the Act of Rs.29,28,23,500/- and land purchased by the assessee, identical issue arose in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2016-17 and 2015-16, wherein it has been held that same is an agricultural land and tax is not required to be deducted under Section 194-IA of the Act. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, we confirmed the order of the learned CIT (A). Accordingly, these gro....