M/S AINA CONSTRUCTION,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(3), SURAT

AINA Construction Vs. DCIT, Circle-2(3), Surat / ITA No.476/SRT/2018/A.Y.2013-14 Page 1 of 4 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सुरत �यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT �ीमती िदवा िसंह, �ाियक सद� तथा �ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद� के सम� BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.476/SRT/2018 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year : 2013-14 AINA Construction, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of 37, Nirmala Nagar Society, Income Tax, Sarthana Jakanaka, Varachha Road, Circle-2(3), Surat. Surat. [PAN: AAQFA 5644 J] अपीलाथ� Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent िनधा�रती क� ओर से /Assessee by Shri Ashwin Parekh – CA राज�व क� ओर से /Revenue by Shri Srinivas T.Bidari – CIT-DR 08.01.2019 सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing: 11.01.2019 उ�ोषणा क� तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH, JM: 1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 25.05.2018 of CIT(A), Surat-1 pertaining to 2013-14 assessment year on the following grounds : 1. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,75,10,000/- without appreciating the facts of no admission of Undisclosed Income, sale of 56 units in earlier years, statement of Row House owners admitting no payment of "On-money" and no evidence of "On- money" found on the date of survey. The addition of Rs. 2,75,10,000/- should therefore, be deleted. 2. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,68,80,000/- for the papers belonging to Hirenbhai Solanki without appreciating the facts recorded in Q. No. 14 of statement recorded on 17.12.2012, facts of no bunglow No. 96 to 102 in the project of 64 Row Houses of appellant and non-Verification of Hirenbhai Solanki. The addition of Rs. 6,68,80,000/- should therefore, be deleted. 3. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,18,875/- for page No. 18 of Annexure B-l-1 disregarding the facts of allocation of cost of compound wall between residents of Gangotri Project and adjoining project of Shree Residency whereby their mutual dealing were reduced to

AINA Construction Vs. DCIT, Circle-2(3), Surat / ITA No.476/SRT/2018/A.Y.2013-14 Page 2 of 4 writing and having no implications on the appellant. The addition of Rs. 12,18,875/- should therefore, be deleted. 4. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in , passing the Order u/s. 250 of the Act without allowing the next date of hearing in term of letter dtd. 25.05.2018 filed by assessee. The Order of should therefore, be set aside.” 2. The ld.AR inviting attention to Ground No.4 submitted that the appeal of the assesse has been dismissed without passing an order on merit. Referring to the record it was submitted that the assessee had been seeking time in order to place necessary evidence on record for which purposes the CIT(A) had granted time. The last notice dated 17.05.2018 fixing the date of hearing 24.05.2018 it was submitted was received by the assessee on 25.05.2018 and on account of this fact the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) on 24.05.2018 and put a personal appearance along with an application on 25.05.2018. Referring to page 101 of the paper book it was submitted that the assessee had stated The hearing of above case has been fixed on 24.05.2018. However, the notice is received today. Kindly, therefore, allow a short adjournment and refix a new date and oblige. In the circumstances it was his prayer that the matter may be remanded and remand may be made to the assessing officer as in the facts of the present case the factum of ownership of this specific land is disputed by the assessee for which purposes the Assessing Officer will need to carry out enquiry with the land Revenue Authorities. It was his submission that the assessee has taken this position even before the Assessing Officer and all necessary facts and evidences in support of its claim have been made available to the Assessing Officer.