2023 (5) TMI 55

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... well as assessee are directed against two different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Act (Appeals) 2, Chennai dated 31.03.2016 and 28.11.2019 for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. In the appeal filed by the Revenue, the following grounds have been raised: 6.1 The learned CIT(A) failed to note that consequent to the relief granted by her, the taxable income has got reduced to Rs.1,15,00,338/-. As in the case of assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, the learned CIT(A) is not empowered to grant relief beyond the income returned, more particularly when such quantum of income is not taxed elsewhere. 6.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.2,27,20,347/- made by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to Rs. 3,06,42,988/- in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 is due to withdrawal of depreciation on farm equipment and farm related expenditure. 3. From the details gathered during the course of survey and verification of books of account it is noticed that the assessee has purchased lands for companies like ILFS and SRM Energy. As per the details submitted the extent of land purchased and the cost etc. of such purchases and the amount received or receivable from the aforesaid companies are as under: S. No. Name of the company Extent of land in acres Cost of purchase including registration charges etc. Amount receivable from company towards the land  Gross profit (Rs.) 1. ILFS - - -....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ompanies and not in a position to recover the same. The details of such amounts retained by the assessee are as under: SRM : Rs. 9,53,31,843 Good Earth : Rs. 2,72,57,459   Rs.12,25,89,302 Thus, the excess advance paid by the companies to the assessee has been retained by the assessee itself and has no intention to return the same. Therefore, the same has to be treated as income of the assessee. If the aggregate advance is added to the profit so far declared it works out to Rs.33,66,83,054/- which is less than the profits assessed at Rs.31,39,62,707/-. Hence, the difference of Rs.2,27,20,347/- is also assessed to tax as income of the assessee." 4. On appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat there is no need to retain the above addition separately. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 6. So far as appeal filed by the assessee in the assessment year 2012-13 is concerned, the assessee has challenged confirmation of net profit of Rs..1,35,97,822/- @ 30% on Rs..4,53,26,072 being sale of lands at Chavadi. During the course of examination of books of account, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has sold plots and recorded the sales in ledger account named as "Plot Sales @ Chavadi Land". The aggregate amount of such sales made during the year between May, 2011 and March, 2012 was Rs..4,53,26,072/-. The assessee d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of net profit @ 15% on sale of the plots would be reasonable. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to estimate the net profit @15% towards sale of plots. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 7. So far as appeal filed by the assessee in the assessment year 2013-14 is concerned, the assessee has challenged the exparte order passed by the ld. CIT(A). After following due procedure and considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act dated 28.03.2016 by estimating the net profit at 30% and accordingly, addition of Rs..67,66,367/- was made. On appeal, since there was no repr....