TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 779
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear 2020-21, passed on dated 16.03.2024. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the CPC, Bengaluru (in short, 'the A.O.'), passed under section 143(1)of the Act, date of order 24/12/2021. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- "In the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the adjustment made by the Ld. ADIT, CPC of denial of claim of exemption u/s. 10(2A) of the Act in respect of share of profit (net of loss) derived by the appellant in the capacity as a Partner of Rs. 1,83,17,026/- by invoking the provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act is illegal and bad-in-law since the same is made: (a) By merely emailing the Intimation u/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essed as income for the year under appeal and accordingly, ought to have directed the Ld. ADIT, CPC to grant exemption u/s. 10(2A) of the Act of Rs. 1,83,17,026/-: S.No. Name of the Firm A.Y. Share of Profit Share of loss(Rs.) Net amount claimed exempt u/s 10(2A) 1 Unique Real Estate Developers 2019-20 2,12,17,019 - 2,12,17,019 2 Aspen Real Estate Developers LLP 2019-20 - 339 (339) 2020-21 779 - 779 3 Sanskar Dwelling LLP 2019-20 - 2,376 (2,376) 4 Vertizo Resources Management LLP 2020-21 - 13,92,188 (13,92,188) Total 2,12,17,798 29,00,772 1,83,17,026 3. It is humbly prayed that the reliefs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed a written submission which is kept in record. The Ld.AR first argued that the intimation for adjustment of demand duly informed to assessee on dated 20/12/2021. When the assessee proceeded to reply the intimation of the Ld.AO, there was no impression in the window in the website of the Income-tax Portal. So assessee was unable to comply the notice passed by the Ld.AO. Finally, within 2 days, the intimation was issued under section 143(1) of the Act and the demand was raised. The Ld.AR argued that there is a violation of 2^nd Proviso of section 143(1) where the adjustment of income was done without allowing the 30 days time. Therefore, the entire intimation should be quashed. 5. The Ld.DR argued and relied on the order of the Reven....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the year under consideration. Thus, the appellant's claim is prima facie wrong. 6. Thus, there no infirmity in the intimation made by the CPC and accordingly, it upheld and the claim of the appellant is prima facie wrong and ineligible to exemption of tax u/s 10(2A) of the IT Act. 7.1. In view of the above, I'm of the considered opinion that appellant is NOT entitled for claiming exemption of Rs. 1, 83,17,026/- u/s 10(2A) of the IT Act. Hence, these grounds of appeal of the appellant are dismissed. 8.1. Ground No.3: Determination of gross tax payable under normal provisions of the Act. Upon granting relief as prayed for vide Ground No.1 and 2 here-in-above, the ADIT, CPC be directed to delete the deman....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n; ^23[***] (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; [(iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) [disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated] in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under [section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of sectio....