G.S. PROCON PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5(2), , KOLKATA

The appeal of the assessee is filed belatedly by 345 days. In this regard, the Managing Director on behalf of the assessee company has filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein that due to some unavoidable circumstances and due to his illness, the appeal could not be filed within the time, therefore, he requested that the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned and the appeal of the assessee company be admitted for hearing. Ld. Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Considering the submission of the ld. AR and the prayer of the Managing Director on behalf of the assessee company, the delay of 345 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is in the business of civil contractor. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer had invoked the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) of the Act (wrongly mentioned by the Assessing Officer as 56(1)(vii)(b)(i)) and had disallowed the difference between the documented value and the market value in respect of flats sold by the assessee to various purchasers. It was the submission that the assessee is a company and the assessee is also recognised as a company in the assessment order in column 5 of the status. It was the submission that the provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) of the Act applies to an individual or HUF. It was the submission that the assessee being not an individual nor an HUF, the provision of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) of the Act is not applicable to the assessee. Ld.AR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Neelkamal Realtors & Erectors India (P.) Ltd., reported in [2017] 79 taxmann.com 238 (Bombay). It was the submission that the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be deleted.