TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c order, which in opinion need to be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same denovo. See ACIT vs. M/s Shukla & Brothers [2010 (4) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] No infirmity in the arguments advanced on behalf of the Department, that no reasons have been recorded for rejecting the contentions raised, this legal infirmity has, in fact, prejudicially affected the case of the assessee before us. - Thus remit back the case to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to hear the case de novo and pass appropriate and speaking order in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. Nos.6462/DEL/2013 AND 3732/DEL/2014 - - - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alter, add, or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal. 4. The grounds raised in Revenue s Appeal for assessment year 2010-11 read as under:- 1. Ld. CIT(A) had erred in deleting addition amounting to ₹ 2,37,15,070/- made by the AO being difference between maintenance incurred by assessee in maintaining the building flats constructed by assessee charges contribution towards maintenance charges received from flat owners, without appreciating the reasoning for such disallowance. 2. Ld. ClT(A) had erred in deleting addition amounting to ₹ 11,82,84,871/- being it expanses shown towards project-I (Uniworld Garden-I) without appreciating the cogent reasoning for holding the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the issues in dispute afresh and pass a well reasoned and speaking order. In support of her arguments she has filed a copy of order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Shukla Brothers decided in SLP(C) No. 16466 of 2009 vide order dated 15.09.2010. She further stated that Ld. CIT(A) also erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,03,86,732/- on account of loss under maintenance charges, without appreciating that the said project was treated as completed on the last day of the previous year i.e. 31.3.2009, due to the fact that all major work in the project was completed and possession of 504 flats had been given during the y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the submission of the assessee that the project completion method adopted by the assessee has been AO in the past and the same remained undisturbed even after the scrutiny assessments u/s. 143(3) for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is no proper justification for the AO to reject the books of accounts and estimate the income @15% and as such the addition made by the AO is deleted. 7.1 After perusing the aforesaid findings, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of ₹ 32,72,07,299/- made by the AO under the head business profit; without appreciating the totality of facts discussed and also case laws mentioned in the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e before us. Hence, we are unable to sustain the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and for the aforerecorded reasons, we set aside the impugned order and remit back the case to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to hear the case de novo and pass appropriate and speaking order in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard. 8. As regards other grounds are concerned, since we have remitted the back the issue raised in ground no. 1 to the file of the CIT(A) with the aforesaid directions given in para no. 7 to 7.1 as aforesaid, hence, the ground no. 2 is also remitted to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the similar directions as given for ground no. 1, as aforesaid. 9. With regard to ITA No. 3732/Del/2014 (AY 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
