TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer raises no such ground of appeal. Even otherwise, what order the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) should have passed, could not be the matter of argument before us unless the same is raised in the grounds of appeal. We are also not empowered to suggest to the parties about what grounds should have been raised by them. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has reached to the above conclusion after obtaining the remand report of the AO. DR could not show us the argument of LD AO before LD CIT (A) to give him direction to make addition in the year in which it is received. In view of this, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). Accordingly, ground 1 raised by the learned Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oved. 03 Only grievance in this appeal is the deletion of the addition of ₹ 4,42,46,917/- which the learned Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made. The reason for deletion was that the above sum was not received in the assessment year 2010- 11. 04 The brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of property development. He filed his return on 15/10/2010 at ₹ 11,74,104/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny. The nature of the income shown by the assessee is business income and Income from other sources. 05 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer asked the assessee to furnish the details with reference to unsecured loans, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), after obtaining the remand report as well as rejoinder to the same, noted that out of the addition of ₹ 6,99,93,970/- made by the learned Assessing Officer, a sum of ₹ 4,16,46,970/- is not required to be added during this year for the reason that the same was no credited in the books of account of the assessee during this year, but in earlier years. He confirmed the addition of ₹ 2,83,47,000/- and deleted balance sum of ₹ 4,16,46,970/- for this reason. Except this, all other additions made by the learned Assessing Officer were confirmed by that order. 07 The learned Assessing Officer is aggrieved with the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) with respect to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income tax (Appeals). 10 We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) clearly states that Assessing officer has made addition u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act amounting to ₹ 6,99,93,970/-. On perusal of submission of assessee, remand report by The Ld AO and rejoinder of the assessee, he found that out of the sum of ₹ 6,99,93,970/-, only sum of ₹ 2,83,47,000/- was received during the previous year and the balance sum of ₹ 4,16,46,970/- was received in the earlier years. Therefore, he deleted the addition of ₹ 4,16,46,970/- and confirmed balance addition of ₹ 2,83,47,000/-. The provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) should have passed, could not be the matter of argument before us unless the same is raised in the grounds of appeal. We are also not empowered to suggest to the parties about what grounds should have been raised by them. Further, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has reached to the above conclusion after obtaining the remand report of the Assessing Officer. Ld DR could not show us the argument of LD AO before LD CIT (A) to give him direction to make addition in the year in which it is received. In view of this, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). Accordingly, ground 1 raised by the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
