Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A”
Before: HON’BLE SH. SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & HON’BLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM
ITO 14(1)(3) Aum Developers, 605, Karim Manzil, 2nd बिधम/ Mumbai Pin- floor, J. S. S. Road, Chira Vs. Bazar, Mumbai-400052 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AAHFA5578N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Pramod Nikalje, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.09.2018 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 18.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R
Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member:
The present Appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeal) – 25, Mumbai dated 01.03.13 for AY 2009-10 on the grounds mentioned herein below:-
1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on the facts, by upholding the disallowance of compensation paid amounting to Rs. 14,00,000/-
2. The appellant crave leave to add to, alter, modify, substitute or supplement the aforesaid grounds at or before the time of hearing.
At the very outset, it is noticed that none has appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of several calls and even no application for adjournment was moved. On the other hand Ld. DR is present in the court and is ready with arguments. Therefore we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte with the assistance of the Ld. DR and the material placed on record.
Ground No. 1 3. This ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the disallowance of compensation paid amounting to Rs. 14,00,000/-.
We have heard Ld. DR and we have also perused the material placed on record well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. Before we decide the merits of the case, it is necessary to evaluate the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the above grounds raised by the assessee in para no. 3 of its order and after having gone through the detailed order passed by Ld. CIT(A), we find that the assessee had claimed expenses of Rs. 14 lakhs towards payment of compensation to 5 persons who had cancelled booking of flat no. 901. On being asked by the AO regarding the justification of the said payment, assessee explained that the said amount of Rs. 14 lakhs was paid to the five joint purchasers as they had cancelled booking of flat, therefore as per mutual understanding and negotiations, the compensation was paid to these five persons in aggregate and in accordance with prudent business practice. The assessee also submitted before Ld. CIT(A) that since the joint purchasers had paid substantial part of purchase amount and the assessee was not able to provide possession of the flat within the stipulated period, therefore while relying upon booking letter cum agreement executed between the parties, it was obligatory on the part of the assessee to compensate the purchasers who had cancelled the booking.
Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts had correctly pointed out that the letter cum agreement did not contain any stipulation as to compensation in case of cancellation of booking of flat by either side. Therefore, it was not obligatory on the part of the assessee to pay any compensation.
Moreover, no new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings so recorded by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, this ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed.
Ground No. 2 5. This ground raised by the assessee is general in nature, thus requires no specific adjudication.