9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penses (b) Assessment of advance of Rs. 3 lakhs received against sale of asset 3. The appeal is barred by limitation by 302 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit stating that he has shifted his residence from Mumbai to Pune, as he has closed the business due to heavy losses. It is stated that he came to know of the order passed by the learned CIT(A) through his chartered accountant and thereafter immediately filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The chartered accountant of the assessee Shri S.C. Agrawal has filed a letter wherein he has stated that the order served by the learned CIT(A) to the assessee was returned back by the postal department and hence he was asked to collect the order from the office of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r before 30.11.2016. Subject to the payment of the above said cost, the delay is condoned. 7. We notice that the assessee has paid the cost of Rs. 5,000/- 25.11.2016 and has furnished a copy of challan, vide letter dated 25.11.2016. 8. Now, we shall proceed to dispose of the appeal on merit. The first issue urged in this appeal relates to adhoc disallowance made out of expenses. The assessee has claimed an expenditure of Rs. 36,66,955/- in the profit and loss account. Since the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer, he made adhoc disallowance of 10% out of the expenses referred above. The learned CIT(A) restricted the same to 5%. 9. Learned AR submitted that the Assessing Officer had made identical dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer. We noticed that the learned CIT(A) has not recorded such kind of facts in the impugned order, meaning thereby assessee did not file details of expenses before the learned CIT(A) during the year under consideration. Accordingly, we are of the view that the addition of part of expenses claimed by the assessee is justified. However, considering the nature of business carried on by the assessee, we are of the view that the addition of 5% of the expenses, which approximately works out to Rs. 1.80 lakhs is on the higher side. Accordingly, we modify the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to Rs. 1 lakh only. We order accordingly. 12. Next issue relates to assessment of Rs. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was registered on 13/03/2009. The reasons stated in the deed of cancellation was non approval of the loan by the financial institutions to the purchaser of the property. According to this deed of the cancellation, the amount of Rs. 3,00.000/- given as a token by the purchaser, was returned back by the appellant: According to the AR, since the deal of the sale of property could not be materialized and the purchaser was not paying any amount due to the non-approval of the bank loan, the agreement to sell was ultimately cancelled and therefore this transaction of sale of property did not warrant any reflection in the return of income filed by the appellant for the year under consideration. 14. During the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of the tax authorities that the assessee had retained the advance amount of Rs. 3 lakhs. On the contrary the assessee has proved that the above said amount had been returned back to the buyer in the subsequent period. Hence, we are of the view that there was no scope for assessing advance amount of Rs. 3 lakhs as income of the assessee during the year under consideration. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 3 lakhs that was confirmed by the learned CIT(A).
16. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
Order has been pronounced in the Court on 30.11.2016 X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
