TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round as it is noticed that there is hardly any supportive evidence apart from self serving expenditure vouchers which are in the nature of payee's outstanding adjustments only. There is not even a photograph of the works executed attached along with the necessary details as to what was the alleged improvement carried out in the corresponding capital asset so as to be eligible for deduction u/s. 48 r.w.s. 49 of the Act. We thus hold that the assessee's instant arguments do not deserve to be accepted since supported by self-serving vouchers turning out be adjustment entries only. Undisclosed income - survey operation conducted u/s. 133A - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has gone by the Assessing Officer's remand report which indicates that the DCIT, Circle 16(2) had clarified before the CIT(A) that its office was not having the corresponding documents impounded during the course of survey. The CIT(A) termed the said alleged remand report to have supported the assessee's case which totally appears perverse conclusion therefore. We next notice from assessee's as well as department's detailed paper books respectively that not only the former had entered into variou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;s latter substantive ground challenging correctness of both the lower authorities action disallowing its repair and maintenance expenditure claim of ₹ 21.09 lakhs to the extent of 20% coming to ₹ 4,21,800/- allegedly due to lack of sufficient cogent evidence. Needless to say, the very factual position has continued before the tribunal as well wherein neither this taxpayer has filed all necessary evidence are the repair maintenance heads nor there is any justification in the impugned estimated disallowance at much higher rate of 20%. We thus conclude that a lumpsum estimation of 10% of the impugned claim would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets 50% relief. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. Its former appeal ITA No. 844/Hyd/2018 is partly allowed in forgoing terms. 4. Next comes A.Y. 2010-11 involving the Assessee's appeal ITA 734/Hyd/2017 raising the sole substantive ground that both the lower authorities have erred in fact and in disallowing its development expenditure of ₹ 3.60 crores. The CIT(A) discussion to this effect reads as under: 7.1 With regard to the disallowan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 49 of the Act. We thus hold that the assessee's instant arguments do not deserve to be accepted since supported by self-serving vouchers turning out be adjustment entries only. The impugned disallowance of ₹ 3.6 crores stand affirmed therefor. The assessee's appeal ITA No. 734/Hyd/2017 is rejected. 6. We now advert to the Revenue's appeal ITA 1038/Hyd/2017 raising its sole substantive ground that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting undisclosed income addition of ₹ 12.34 crores as under: 5.1 With regard to addition of undisclosed income amounting to ₹ 12.34 crores, the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings observed as under: After the survey operation conducted u/s. 133A in the premises of M/s. Ocean Park Multitech Pvt. Ltd. on 19.03.2010, certain incriminating material was found and impounded. During the assessment proceedings on verification of impounded material and the information furnished during the assessment proceedings, it is found that as per MOU between Radha Realty Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. (RRCPL) and the assessee-company, M/s. RRCPL had paid an amount of ₹ 16.25 crores to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em and as settled in the Lok Adalat and withdrawal all the cases filed between them and entered into a compromise and withdrawn all the cases filed by them. 5.3 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. The addition mainly made by the Assessing Officer for this A.Y. of ₹ 12.34 crores as undisclosed income based on Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Radha Reality Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. and appellant company. With regard to this submission of the appellant verified and considered. The MOU mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the order was unsigned. A remand report was called for from the Assessing Officer to verify the details. In the remand report dated 23.03.2017, the Assessing Officer stated that no signed copy of MOU was available with them and there was no survey folder and no documents were available in the office with them. Therefore, it is proved that the Assessing Officer made the additions without any further enquiry and evidence simply basing on the MOU which was not signed. Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. Hence, the relevant ground raised by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
