TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kkubai and Shri Dhanapal, as part of cost of acquisition, after having found that the entire consideration has been considered in the hands of the assessee company. While passing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer had erroneously left out some of the entires which necessitated the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to interfere with the assessment order. The order passed by the Cit (Appeals) is just and proper. Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal has rightly confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Retention money withheld - whether to be allowed even though the liability on account of it had nto crystallized during the present assessment year? - HELD THAT:- In view of the Judgment rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee to one Mr..Rajagopalan and the said Rajagopalan managed to procure 14.79 acres of land in favour of the assessee company. The assessee company purchased the entire 14.79 acres for a total consideration of ₹ 4,41,38,500/-. The land was registered for a sum of ₹ 1,38,82,000/-. But, the assessee had to pay an amount of ₹ 1,86,61,000/- to the land owners over and above the guideline value. The land owners insisted that they could sell the land only at market price, therefore, in addition to the guideline value paid by the assessee and shown in the registered document, the assesssee also paid ₹ 1,86,61,000/- as consideration outside the document. Further, the assessee could evict the unauthorised occupants after payi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.850- as against Rs.,6,98,26,550/- declared by the assessee. 2.4 On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed all the cost factors explained by the assessee and disallowed those cash payments made by the assessee by invoking section 40A(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has also made an addition of ₹ 2,18,96,985/- towards retention money. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the said addition made by the assessing Officer towards retention money. 2.5 Aggrieved over the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) , the Revenue has filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and the Tribunal. dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts were not received, they cannot be considered as part of income for the impugned assessment year. The original authority, while considering the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ignifluid Boilers (P) Ltd., [(2006) 283 ITR 295)], was of the view that since the issue was pending before the Supreme Court and that such a claim is of recurring nature, declined to extend the benefit to the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), however, laying emphasis on the decision of this Court in Ignifluid Boilers (P) Ltd., case (supra), allowed the appeal of the assessee and the department's appeal before the Tribunal was dismissed holding that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court is binding on the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d therefore, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is proper and that of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. The payments made by Shri Chakkubai and Shri Dhanapal, as part of cost of acquisition, after having found that the entire consideration has been considered in the hands of the assessee company. While passing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer had erroneously left out some of the entires which necessitated the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to interfere with the assessment order. The order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is just and proper. Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal has rightly confirmed the order passed by the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
