TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1079
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- "1.1 The order passed u/s. 250 on 21.03.2024 for A.Y.2014-15 by Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Lucknow upholding the additions/ disallowances of Rs. 14,06,878 is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the eccentric facts and evidence available with regard to the impugned additions. 1.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in not carrying out any inquiry with regard to the applicability of the provisions of Income tax Act and thereby violated the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the appellant shall be granted opportunity t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... explain why rent should not be computed on such unsold units which were ready for possession and why the same should not be added as the income of the assessee under the head "income from house property". 4. In response, the assessee submitted that the company is engaged in construction of residential units and development activities, since the date of it's incorporation. The unsold inventories/units of the assessee company are carried forward as stock-in-trade of the assessee and the assessee has not shown unsold flats as "fixed assets" in the balance sheet. The assessee submitted that property which was held as stock-in-trade by the assessee, being a real estate developer for the purpose of it's business is not liable to be assessed a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, added the sum of Rs. 13,82,772/- as income of the assessee under the head "income from house property". 6. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-appearance, with the following observations: "6.3 This appeal has been filed by the appellant claiming that the action of the Assessing Officer is not supported by facts and laws and that it is unjust. In such a situation, it is for the appellant to furnish submissions with relevant evidence(s), case laws, if any, to support the claim. The burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim. In this case, it is the appellant who has made the claim by filing the appeal. Thus, in cases where a particular receipt is sought to be taxed as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tories as it's stock-in-trade and therefore, notional ALV cannot be computed on such property, and added as income of the assessee under the head "income from other sources" for the impugned year under consideration. It was submitted that in absence of any specific charging section for the impugned year under consideration to tax notional ALV on such unsold inventory, no income is liable to be added in the hands of the assessee on notional basis on such unsold inventory. Secondly, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that obtaining BU permission per se does not mean/imply that the unsold inventory is ready for possession. Even after obtaining BU permission, various proceedings / formalities need to be completed before such units become ha....