Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 683 - ITAT SURATValidity of order u/s 143(3) as within the statutory time limit prescribed u/s 153 or not? - HELD THAT:- As assessee did not prove with cogent evidence that assessment order passed u/s 143(3), dated 31.03.2013, is beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under the Act. We note that in assessee’s case the assessment year under consideration is A.Y. 2010-11. For assessment year (AY) 2010-11, the AO is supposed to frame assessment order within two years from the end of the assessment year, which ends on 31.03.2013. We note that AO passed the order u/s 143(3) on 31.03.2013, which is within the statutory time limit prescribed u/s 153 - Counsel did not furnish any evidence to demonstrate that the order under section 143(3) was passed beyond the statutory limit. The assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2013, was served on the assessee, on 03.04.2013, that does not mean that order was passed on 03.04.2013. The service of assessment order on the assessee is a different thing altogether. Therefore, we dismiss the ground no.1 raised by the assessee. Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IB(10) - HELD THAT:- As we note that assessee company has not fulfilled the conditions of section 80IB(10) of the Act. However, we note that assessee has submitted before us a letter dated 03.05.2007 of Bardoli Nagarpalika, which is paced at paper book page no.1 and also submitted letter dated 09.07.2008 of Nagar Niyojan (town planner), Surat Branch, these papers were not examined by the assessing officer. Therefore, we remit this issue back to the file of the assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh. The assessee is also directed to submit relevant evidences and documents to prove its claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) - Therefore, statistical purposes, ground no.2 raised by the assessee is allowed. Addition of development/construction receipts as alleged unrecorded receipts - HELD THAT:- We note that as the issue is squarely covered in assessee’s own case wherein the Co-ordinate Bench held that it would be reasonable to estimate 6% on net profit on total on-money receipts. We note that addition of development/construction receipts was made by the assessing officer, treating it alleged unrecorded receipts/on-money. Accordingly, Assessing officer is directed to estimate 6% of net profit on total on-money/unrecorded receipts - Appeal of assessee allowed.
|