9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under which the delay occurred in filing of the appeal and ought to have condoned the delay by taking a lenient view. 3. The Hon'ble C1T(A) ought to have observed that nonadmission of appeal by condoning the delay caused heavy financial liability though there was no strong ground for raising such substantial tax demand. 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have observed that there was no supporting material on record to compute the income at such a substantially high figure and therefore considered the matter on merits instead of mentioning that the addition was made on agreed basis. 5. The Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have observed that the officials of the department did not identify any material during the course of survey ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Managing Partner Shri P.V.S.N. Raju agreed to admit the income by adopting Rs. 500/- per sq. ft as profit on the assessee's share of constructed area of 2,20,000 sft. However, while filing the return of income, the assessee did not offer the income which was accepted during the course of survey to tax. Observing that the assessee during the survey proceedings had admitted the profit @ Rs. 500/- per sq.ft, as per which the profit of the firm should be Rs. 3,89,17,500 on sale of 77,835 sq. ft, whereas the assessee in the return of income has offered only a sum of Rs. 75,40,165 as its profit, the AO brought the difference of profit of Rs. 3,13,77,355 to tax. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) with a delay of 146 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lahabad High Court in the case of Abdul Qayume vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 22 December, 1989, reported in 1990 184 ITR 404 (All) c) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) P. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) 397 ITR 82, 4. Further, he also submitted that the CIT (A) in the subsequent A.Y i.e. 2013-14 (the year of survey) has accepted the valuation of the property as declared by the assessee at Rs. 272/- per sq.ft and therefore, it could not be valued at Rs. 500/- in the earlier A.Y. He filed a copy of the same and submitted that the assessee's books of account which were audited should be accepted. 5. The learned DR, on the other hand, opposed the condonation of delay and also placed reliance upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tify any material during the course of survey u/s 133A of the Act to the effect that the assessee has realized the profit @ Rs. 500 sq.ft in respect of the area of 77,835 sq.ft sold by him and therefore, the income could not have been estimated. In the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the assessee, the Hon'ble Courts have held that even though the assessee had admitted the income during the course of survey, the same cannot be the basis for sustaining the addition. Further, in the case before us, the CIT (A) has refused to condone the delay of 146 days. According to us, the assessee does not stand to gain anything by filing the appeal belatedly. Therefore, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
