Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 208 - ITAT INDOREValidity of assessment u/s 153A - revenue precisely claims that the CIT(A) was wrong in giving benefit of certain decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts to assessee and at the same time ignoring the decision of Raj Kumar Arora [2014 (10) TMI 255 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT favouring revenue - HELD THAT:- As search was conducted on 01.06.2011 and the AY 2011-12 & AY 2012-13 with which we are concerned in present-appeals were falling within the category of ‘pending years’ as on the date of search whereas the decision in CIT Vs. Raj Kumar Arora (supra) was pertaining to ‘completed/unabated years’ wherein it was held that the addition can be made in ‘completed/unabated years’ even in absence of incriminating material. Ld. AR submitted that the Raj Kumar Arora decision has no relevance to assessee’s case and the ground raised by revenue should not arise for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 under consideration before us. Further, the decision in Raj Kumar Arora is not valid after subsequent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in PCIT Vs. Abhishar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. [2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT]. Therefore, the grounds raised by revenue are meritless and liable to be dismissed. Exemption u/s 11 - violation of section 13 - assessee-society has given its office premise on rent to concerns wherein the members of society were directors/shareholders/partners/substantially interested less than prevalent rates of rent - HELD THAT:- The submission of Ld. DR for revenue that the assessee’s submission in letter dated 24.03.2014 was self-serving is not convincing because of the reason that when the assessee made such a categorical submission, it was the minimum duty of AO to discuss the assessee’s submission in assessment-order and to rebut or contradict the same. But the AO has kept silence on assessee’s submission and went ahead to make adjudication against assessee. In the situation, we are inclined to accept CIT(A)’s order which takes into account assessee’s categorical submission and thereby hold that the rent charged by assessee was fair, rather higher than prevailing rent and further holding that there was no violation of section 13 of the Act. Faced with this situation, we are not inclined to make any interference with the order of CIT(A); the same is hereby upheld. These grounds are therefore dismissed. Addition u/s 69B on account of unexplained investments in buildings - AO has made these additions by making a reference to DVO u/s 142A and after taking into account the final report submitted by DVO to him, on the basis of difference in the cost of construction recorded in books of account of assessee and the valuation thereof reported in DVO’s report - CIT(A) deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) correctly deleted addition by holding the reference made by AO u/s 142A as non- maintainable. The reasoning adopted by CIT(A) is that prior to amendment in section 142A from 01.10.2014, the AO could not have make such a reference without finding any defect in books of account and without rejecting books of account. In accepting this, Ld. CIT(A) relied upon several judicial rulings including the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sargam Cinema Vs. CIT[2009 (10) TMI 569 - SC ORDER] - Respectfully, following the same, we are inclined to uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss these grounds of revenue. Unexplained cash u/s 69A - CIT(A) deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- We find that the search authorities have found petty amounts of cash with three different colleges at three different places which are not abnormal or unusual. Further, the assessee has also submitted that the cash-balance is duly reflected in its cash-book. Considering these aspects, the submission of assessee can be treated as bona fide and believable. Therefore, we are not persuaded to upset the order passed by CIT(A) in this regard, the same is hereby upheld. These grounds are also dismissed.
|