9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the bonafide belief that no appeal need to be filed against the order of CIT till reassessment is made. However, on the advice of the legal counsel they filed the appeal against the order of CIT belatedly. 3. Heard both parties. On the facts and circumstances of the case we deem it fit in the interest of justice to condone the delay in filing the appeal and take up the same on merits. 4. For the Assessment Year 2006-07 the assessee filed return on 30.11.2006 admitting NIL income of return. The assessment u/s.143(3) was completed on 17.11.2008. The CIT passed order under Section 263 of the I.T. Act 1961, directing the Assessing Officer to revise the order of assessment on the following issues:- 5. The first issue was that in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we are of the opinion that the first reason for revising the order of assessment u/s.143(3) on account of non-levy of interest u/s.201(IA) cannot be sustained and the order of CIT directing the Assessing Officer to levy interest u/s.201(IA) in respect of Professional Charges and Interest held are hereby deleted. 7. The second issue is regarding loans aggregating to Rs. 17 lakhs advanced by the assessee to M/s. Adarsh Developers (P) Ltd. The CIT was of the opinions that the agreement dt.19.3.2005 for grant of loan provided for levy of interest by the borrower but the assessee had not offered any corresponding interest income. He had extracted the agreement between the assessee and M/s. Adarsh Developers (P) Ltd wherein the amounts given by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said M/s Adarsh Developers Pvt. Ltd., which in turn invested the monies in another company, namely, M/s Saphire Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 10. Further, it is submitted that subsequently, disputes arose on the lands acquired by M/s Saphire Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., whereby misunderstandings arose bweteen the company and the said M/s Adarsh Developers Pvt. Ltd. and there was a protracted litigation, which was agreed to be settled in an amicable manner. As a compromise, the company desired to have a direct investment in Saphire rather than through Adarsh. It is further submitted that by virtue of an agreement dated 25th September, 2008 entered into by the company, M/s Embassy Real Estate Properties and Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Adarsh Devel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e allowed. We order accordingly. 12. The next issue is regarding claim of disallowance of Rs. 5,35,748/- as factory maintenance. The assessee acquired a property in auction from Debt Recovery Tribunal. However, the said auction was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. In the meanwhile, the assessee took possession of the property and incurred an expenditure of Rs. 5,35,000 as maintenance of plant and machinery. According to the CIT the assessee had neither produced any evidence nor the Assessing Officer had considered the issue. While we do not agree with CIT regarding the direction to straightaway disallow the expenditure, we set aside this issue to the files of Assessing Officer for reconsidering the allowability of expendit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
