Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Sanjay Arora
आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08/02/2013, of the ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai,
Mayuresh Developers & Construction confirming addition of Rs.14,40,000/- as income from undisclosed sources, being the amount, deemed to have been received, on allotment of six car parking space without providing opportunity to cross verify such persons, whose statements were recorded behind the back of the assessee and on the basis of such statement, the income was estimated.
During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Nitesh Joshi, advanced arguments, which are identical to the ground raised by further explaining that the presumptive addition was made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the report of the Inspector and no cross examination was allowed to the assessee of the persons from whom statements were recorded. Our attention was invited to the ground raised, as well as the statement of facts, before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri D. Prabhakar Reddy, contended that it is a usual practice of charging the car space in Mumbai, thus, the addition was rightly made.
2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is engaged in the business of builder and developers, developed a commercial project “Mayuresh Cosmos” in CBD Belapur, Mumbai and declared loss of Rs.3,49,311/- in its return e-filed on 27/08/2009. The open car parking space/stilt car parking space was claimed to be Mayuresh Developers & Construction part of common area and no title or ownership rights of the car parking space, as per the assessee, are provided. To cover up the administrative cost, the assessee received Rs.10,000/- per car parking space and thus the amount of Rs.60,000/- was credited to the profit & loss account. However, the ld. Assessing Officer on the basis of report of the Inspector held that the assessee collected Rs.2,50,000/- , per car parking space, thus, the assessee presumed to have collected Rs.15,00,000/-, thus, the ld. Assessing Officer added to Rs.14,40,000/-(Rs.15,00,000 – 60,000/-) to the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources.
2.2. On appeal, before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the stand taken in the assessment order was affirmed, against which the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal.
2.3. If the observations made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, assertions made by the ld. respective counsel, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, we find that the basis of addition by the ld. Assessing Officer was the report of the Inspector and the statements recorded by him from some persons. The factum of not providing copy of report, based on which the Inspector arrived to a particular amount, the persons, who were contacted by the Inspector, copies of statement recorded from such persons and opportunity to cross examination and Mayuresh Developers & Construction to verify the said statements is evident from para 8 of the statement of facts, filed before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the addition and considering the totality of facts and the material available on record, we remand this file back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer to provide the necessary documents as copy of statements recorded from certain persons, and if so desired by the assessee, to cross examine such persons. The assessee is also at liberty to furnish evidence, if any, in support of its claim. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representative from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 02/03/2016.
Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Arora) (Joginder Singh) लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य /JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 02/03/2016 f{x~{tÜ? P.S/.�न.स
आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai. 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT(A)- , Mumbai
Mayuresh Developers & Construction