ADDL. CIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5381/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 March 2016AY 2010-115 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the assessment order and remanded it back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to be done in light of the restored registration u/s 12AA, allowing the Assessing Officer to examine claims for exemption.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which deleted certain additions made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee, an Artificial Judicial Person, had its registration u/s 12AA withdrawn, but this was later restored by a Tribunal order.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment needs to be reconsidered in light of the restored registration u/s 12AA. The validity of additions made by the AO and the calculation of sales and NP rate were also contested.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AA,Section 11,Section 13,Section 143(3),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Before: SHRI J.S. REDDY & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

Hearing: 16.02.2016Pronounced: 09.03.2016

ORDER

PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)’s-Meerut on 31/07/2013 for A.Y. 2010-11 on the following grounds of appeal: 1. “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(Appeals), Meerut, has erred in law in holding that the Assessing Officer has not rejected the books of accounts of the assessee on the valid grounds whereas on the other hand ld. CIT(A) vide para 8.5 of his order has himself held that the correct profit/loss could not be ascertained due to adhoc principles followed by the assessee and accounts prepared in a casual manner.

Reliance in support of rejection of books u/s 145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is placed on the case laws as under: a) Awadhesh Pratap Singh Abdu Rehman & Bros. vs. CIT, (1994) 210 ITR 406, 408 (All); b) Rainbow Metals (India), In re, (1995) 83 Taxman 160, 166 (ITSC, Bom); c) Dhondiram Dalichand vs. CIT, (1971) 81 ITR 609 (Bom); d) Ram Chanda Singh Ramnik Lal vs. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 780.

2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(Appeals), Meerut, has erred in holding that sales have not correctly been worked out by the Assessing Officer ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer worked out the sales by adding the purchases & development charges to the opening stock and reduced the closing stock from it.

3.

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(Appeals), Meerut, has erred in holding that the N.P. rate had not correctly been worked out by the Assessing Officer ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer had adopted minimum sale price & maximum cost of acquisition & thereby reached to a logical and very reasonable figure rather at the lowest possible side.

4. That the appellant craves leave to add, modify and/or delete any ground(s) of appeal.

5.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the CIT(Appeals), Meerut, may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.”

2.

The brief facts are as under: 2.1 The assessee was granted registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 21/05/2007 and the registration was withdrawn vide order dated 26/03/2009 by the then CIT-Meerut. Being aggrieved by the order the assessee preferred an appeal before this Bench in ITA No. 2037/Del/2013.

3. Be that as it may, the assessment proceedings for the year under consideration was completed vide order dated 28/03/2013 by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) read with sec. 144(4) of the Act. During the assessment proceedings the assessee was assessed as Artificial Judicial Person and additions were to an extent of Rs. 174,51,98,586/- as compared to the returned loss of Rs. 56,47,16,296/- filed by the assessee. 3.1 Aggrieved by the order of the ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) on going through the submissions filed by the assessee deleted certain additions and directed the ld. Assessing Officer to consider the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration at Rs. 23,73,55,450/-. 3.2 Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us.

4.

The ld. AR at the outset submits that, this Tribunal vide order dated 27th August, 2013 in had held that the registration u/s 12AA of the Act granted to the assessee has been wrongly withdrawn by the CIT-Meerut. This Tribunal had restored the registration u/s 12AA of the Act which was cancelled w.e.f. 01/04/2009. The ld. AR, therefore, submitted that the order of the ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and the assessment restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudicate in the light of the decision of this Tribunal in ITA No. 2037/Del/2013. 5. The ld. DR has no objection for the order being set aside to the files of the Assessing Officer.

6.

We, therefore, without going into the merits of the case, set aside the issue to the files of the Assessing Officer to reconsider the assessment in the light of the registration being restored u/s 12AA of the Act. Needless to say that while examining the claim of the assessee for grant of exemption u/s 11 and other relevant provisions of the Act the Assessing Officer shall have all the powers to examine the same as per section 13 and other related provisions of the Act.

More judgments on Section 12AA

All 4,243 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →