Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 560 - AT - Income TaxUndisclosed income as per TDS certificate - Held that:- AR had not furnished any reconciliation for the difference in interest income even before us as rightly pointed out by the ld DR. AR had made merely made bald oral submissions without corroborating the same with material evidences. We find no additional evidence is also filed before us either in the form of proper explanation / reconciliation of the difference, so as to afford one opportunity to the ld AO for verification. Interest on income tax refund also has not been offered to tax by the assessee in the return of income. We find from the assessment order that the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting wherein interest income on deposits with banks are to be offered on accrual basis. Hence we are not inclined to agree to the argument of the ld AR that the said interest income on deposits were to be offered on receipt basis and hence the difference. In fact no evidence was furnished before us to prove the fact of those interest income being offered on receipt basis in the subsequent years. - Decided against assessee. Accrual of income - income from property development - Held that:- Since no evidence has been produced before the lower authorities to prove the same, the addition was sustained by the ld CITA. The ld AR merely stated that in the appeal for the Asst Year 2004-05, the ld CIT-A had directed the ld AO to consider the revised return filed for the Asst Year 2004-05 wherein the entire income from property sale development have been claimed to be offered to tax on accrual basis. The said statement of the ld AR is reckoned as a statement given across the bar and accordingly, we deem it fit and appropriate, in the interest of justice and fair play, to avoid double taxation, to set aside this issue to the file of the ld AO to verify whether the said consideration has been offered to tax by the assessee in Asst Year 2004-05 and if found to be correct, then the same is to be deleted in the hands of the assessee in Asst Year 2005-06. Accordingly, the Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Gains on sale of assets - Short term capital gain OR business income - Held that:- We are not able to fully appreciate the various contentions raised by the assessee that the BIFR had passed an order directing the income tax department to treat the gains on sale of assets as business receipts so as to give the benefit of set off of the same with the brought forward business loss, in view of the fact that the copy of the BIFR order and its directions are not placed on record before us. Hence we are not in a position to appreciate the contentions of the ld AR in this regard. However, the same would be understood only from the language used by the BIFR in its directions and thereafter we need go into the binding nature of those directions. In the absence of the said order before us, it would be premature to get into those line of arguments advanced by the ld AR. However we find lot of force in the argument of the ld AR that the property at Deonar TDR Mumbai has been the subject matter of dispute in Ground No. 4 and we have already set aside the Ground No.4 to the file of the ld AO.
|