TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct character of housing project is not vitiated, Assessing Officer has not brought on record that which part of expenditure claimed to have been incurred for parking is bogus. Hence, in view of the above said arguments, case laws and submissions of the appellant alone, the Assessing Officer could be directed to allow deduction to the appellant u/s. 80IB(10) on sale proceeds of stilt parking. Addition of suppressed value of closing stock - AO has made addition in the valuation of closing stock by taking indirect expenditure as a part of cost of construction like interest expenses, depreciation, brokerage for lease etc. - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- AO has wrongly added expenses of previous year to the value of closing stock without finding fault in assessee’s method of valuation, which was consistently followed by it. The AO has wrongly included indirect cost of project which is not going to form part of value of work in progress. While computing value of closing stock the AO has not pointed out any particular expenses, which should have charged to closing stock and not added by the assessee to the closing stock. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at said expenses were incurred by the assessee firm for running its common office and hence attributable to all the projects. 5. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is engaged in development of real estate projects. During the year under consideration, the assessee had shown lease income of ₹ 30,180,048/- under the head income from house property. It was explained that the assessee is the owner of the properties, hence, rental income from the letting out the property in Sakinaka ABC Wings were offered under the head income from house property. However, the AO treated the same as income from business and declined assessee s claim for deduction of 30% on account of repairs and maintenance. 4. By the impugned order, the CIT(A) allowed assessee s claim of income under the head income from house property after having the following observations :- 2.3 I have gone though the contents of the impugned assessment order as well as arguments submissions of Ld. Authorized Representativ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , The CIT(A) allowed the assessee s claim after having following observations :- 3.3 I have gone though the contents of the impugned assessment order as well as arguments submissions of Ld. Authorized Representative of the appellant along with material available on record including the Hon'ble IT A T's orders in appellant's own case (supra). I find that parking is part parcel of the housing project that is the first and foremost requirement of the residents of the residential units. Therefore, it cannot be said that sale proceeds of stilt parking is outside the purview of Sec. 80IB(10) of the I. T. Act. The parkings are in built and approved in the residential structure of the residential building and no such separate approvals are taken. The principle decided by the Hon'ble Spl. Bench of ITAT (Pune) in the case of Brahma Associates Vs JCIT also supports the case of the appellant that if some part of the flat is used for commercial purpose, the correct character of housing project is not vitiated, Assessing Officer has not brought on record that which part of expenditure claimed to have been incurred for parking is bogus. Hence, in view of the above said arg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... knowing the facts that in the preceding years, expenses have been charged to the closing stock. He has not pointed out any particular expenses which should have charged to the closing stock and not added by the assessee to closing stock. Assessing Officer has neither given reason for not accepting method of valuation of closing stock nor the instance of such expenses which remained to be charged to closing stock. The Assessing Officer has drawn conclusion whimsically, without any cogent reasons to substantiate the allegation of suppressed closing stock of the unsold area of the project. His addition is not based on any adverse material as an evidence in his possession to substantiate his stand but on a mere doubt or a suspicion, which cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the impugned addition of ₹ 2,80,84,319/- is deleted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 11. We have considered rival contentions and found that the AO has wrongly added expenses of previous year to the value of closing stock without finding fault in assessee s method of valuation, which was consistently followed by it. The AO has wrongly included indirect cost of project which is not going ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should have pointed out the defects in the books of accounts of the appellant and the items of expenditure which were diverted for reducing the taxable income. Instead of that, the Assessing Officer has simply made reallocation of expenses of the project which cannot be approved and confirmed in the absence of any evidence. Further respectfully following the decisions in appellant's own case of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai, G Bench, ITA NO.2087/Mum/2010 for A.Y.2006-07 and the reasoning of my Ld. Predecessor's appellate order for A.Y.2007 -08, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow deduction as claimed by the appellant to maintain the judicial discipline in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as discussed above. Accordingly this ground of appeal is also allowed. 14. We have considered rival contentions. As the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are pari materia to the facts and circumstances as considered and decided by the Tribunal in assessee s own case, which has been elaborately referred by the CIT(A) in his impugned order Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for deleting the addition made on account of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
