TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E ASSESSEE : SH. R.M. MEHTA, ADV. FOR THE DEPARTMENT : SH. S.K. JAIN, SR. DR ORDER The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the impugned Order dated 15.6.2016 of Ld. CIT(A), Noida pertaining to assessment year 2012-13. The ground raised in the Assessee s appeal reads as under:- 1. That the assessment order passed under section 143(3) on 20.3.2015 is barred by limitation having being served on the assessee on 8.4.2015 i.e. after the limitation period and therefore deserves to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,81,497/- to the income of the appellant on account of incentive from property broker on original booking of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... check Deals.com on which the TDS of ₹ 18,150/- was deducted u/s. 194H of the Act. In this regard, assessee submitted that she had got a discount on her Jay Pee Property purchased in Feb, 2010 from All Check Deals in the year 2011-12. The assessee had not added the receipt of ₹ 1,81,497/- from All Check Deals, in her total income, therefore, ₹ 1,81,497/- was added to the income of the assessee as other income and accordingly, the assessment was completed at ₹ 9,79,680/- vide assessment order dated 20.3.2015 passed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Against the assessment order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his impugned order dated 15.6.2016 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Now ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se law relied upon. I find considerable cogency in the case law cited by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd., 325 ITR 422 (SC), has held that any receipt directly and intimately linked with the procurement of capital asset is in the nature of capital receipt and not a revenue receipt. 7.1 I further find that the ITAT, Delhi vide its order dated 01.6.2012 passed in the case of DCIT vs. Shri Surendra Mohan Mukhija in ITA NO. 4552/Del/2011 for the AY 2008-09 has held as under:- 5. We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case as also the aforesaid decisions relied upon. Indisputably, the payment of ₹ 51,37,584/- was made to person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... some part of the commission received from the builder from alluring the purchaser so that it can earn more commission. It is just providing a discount to the purchaser and not paying any commission for any services taken from such customers. It appears that learned Assessing Officer was influenced by the nomenclature of the receipt in the hands of the assessee. He failed to distinguish what character such receipt would attain when it will be offered to the customer. The relationship between the assessee and the purchaser of the flat is of buyer and seller. The learned First Appellate Authority has appreciated the controversy in right perspective and we do not see any person to interfere in his order. 5.1 On appeal by the Revenue, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chasers of flats. Consequently, provisions of sec. 40a(ia) of the Act are not applicable and therefore, ground nos. 1 2 in the appeal are dismissed. 8. After perusing the aforesaid decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case CIT vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. (Supra) and the Coordinate Bench decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of DCIT vs. Surendra Mohan Mukhija (Supra), I am of the considered view that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions, because the facts and circumstances of the present case are exactly similar and identical to that of case of CIT vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. (Supra) and DCIT vs. Surendra Mohan Mukhija (Supra). Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
