Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 against the appellate order passed by the CIT(A)-21, Mumbai [ The ld. CIT [A]]dated 09/05/2017 wherein the appeal filed by assessee against the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act by the DCIT 13/3/1 Mumbai [ the Ld.AO] was dismissed.
The only grievance of the assessee is that the learned Assessing Officer has made an addition of ₹ 19,55,652/- being the difference between sales as perprofit and loss account and gross services as per service tax return to the income of the assessee and “1. The Appellant-Assessee-M/s Royal Palms Property Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as „Assessee‟) begs to prefer the following amongst other Grounds of Appeal against the Order of the Hon‟ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as „the Hon‟ble CIT (A)‟] dated May 09, 2017, in the Assessee‟s case for A.Y. 2013-14:
I. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon‟ble CIT(A) erred in dismissing the Assessee‟s appeal and in doing so, the Hon‟ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of ₹ 19,55,625/- made by the learned Assessing Officer II. The Hon‟ble CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the difference in the receipt of sum of ₹ 1,24,250,020/- on account of sales made during the Financial Year relevant to A.Y. 2013- 14, and the reflected sum of ₹ 1,04,71,368/- in the profit and loss account, was on account of revenue amount mentioned in service tax returns vis-s-vis the Profit and Loss Account of the Assessee.