Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2010 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (7) TMI 1037 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of suppression of sale value to RPIPL - HELD THAT:- In the instant case the AO has brought on record that flats in the same building have been sold at a higher price than the sale price to RPIL and since the company has not paid the advance of ₹ 62 lakhs but only the directors of the company have paid such advance, we, therefore, are of the opinion that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition made by the AO. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and restore that of the AO. This ground by the Revenue is accordingly allowed. Deleting the addition - unaccounted profit - compensation for surrender of tenancy rights - HELD THAT:- We find the AO had conclusively proved that the tenancy right in case of Shri Vinay Bhasin is a bogus one. We find the CIT(A) in a very brief and cryptic order deleted the addition without any sound reasoning. In our opinion, if any wrong has been done in the past the same cannot be perpetuated in the subsequent assessment years. Since no evidence whatsoever was furnished either before the AO or before the CIT(A) that Shri Vinay Bhasin was a tenant in the erstwhile ‘Mariam Villa’, therefore, in our opinion, the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition made by the AO. We accordingly set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore that of the AO. Disallowance of deduction - municipality taxes, maintenance charges etc - business expenditure - HELD THAT:- It is the settled proposition of law that for claiming any expenditure as business expenditure the onus is always on the assessee to substantiate with evidence to the satisfaction of the AO that such expenditure is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee. In the instant case the assessee has failed to discharge the onus cast on it. The learned CIT(A) without any proper evidence was simply carried away by the mere statement of the counsel which, in our opinion, is not proper. We, therefore, set aside order of the CIT(A) on this issue and restore that of the AO. The ground raised by the Revenue is accordingly allowed. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed.
|