Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 1025 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - difference in guidelines value for plots purchase - in absence of books of account AO estimated the income from civil construction business @ 10% - HELD THAT:- Assessee has claimed that he has to make Bank FDR for providing Bank Guarantee and security deposit to the Government Department. It is also claimed by the assessee that CC Limit used for business purpose and interest of ₹ 10,08,020/- was paid to Bank of India on the CC limit. It is also claimed that interest on FDs as the nature of business income. Find no merit in this contention of assessee because books of account are not maintained, no such details were ever filed during the course of assessment proceedings. Assessee has himself declared the income on estimated basis. Even AO has also estimated the income on estimated basis so all expenditures if any incurred for the business are deemed to have been allowed. The fixed deposit on which interest was received at ₹ 9,97,465/- and interest on Shri Lokesh Narang at ₹ 45,970/- are in the nature of business income or income from other sources remained to be examined by the ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore in our considered view this issue was rightly remitted to the Ld. Assessing Officer for examination so as to compute the correct income of the assessee. Assessee has purchased 51 residential plots on 12.09.2014 out of which six plots were sold during the year on which the assessee has claimed capital loss - Firstly the assessee has not furnished complete details of plots purchased, and secondly there was no information about the source of investment. Even AO has not raised any query about the details of plots purchased, purchase consideration paid, fair market value of the property/valuation as per stamp valuation authority, whether they are part of business transaction and most importantly source of investment to purchase these properties. The information called by the AO as well as the assessment order are silent on this issue. It is also noteworthy that in the computation of income assessee has shown income from house property, profit and gain of business, income from sale and profit of firm, income from capital gain and income from other source and after claiming the deduction u/s 80C of the Act total income has been shown at ₹ 49,15,731/- whereas surprisingly on looking to the assessment order dated 30.12.2017 we find that the assessment has been completed only by estimating the income @10% on the turnover disclosed by the assessee at ₹ 8,08,21,143/-. Ld. Assessing Officer has not made any reference of various other incomes shown by the assessee in its computation of income. This fact in itself shows that there is no application of mind by AO in framing the assessment order for A.Y. 2015-16 in the case of assessee and there is complete lack of enquiry by him on the issues raised in the impugned order. We, therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case and our discussions made herein above, are of the considered view that assessment order framed by the Ld. AO is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue and Ld. Pr. CIT has rightly set aside the same. - Decided against assessee.
|