Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2008)304ITR338(Jodh.)
1. We proceed to decide both these appeals by a common order as these are cross-appeals filed against the order of the CIT(A), Udaipur, dt.5th Aug., 2002 for asst. yr. 1996-97.2. The background facts of the case in nutshell are that the assessee company filed its return on 30th Nov., 1996 declaring a loss of Rs. 1,18,413. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 30th March, 1999 at an income of Rs. 5,95,990. The assessee had made payments of contract and interest but did not deduct requisite tax. The AO charged interest under Section 201(1A) on account of non-deduction of tax. In first round, the learned CIT(A) vide order dt. 24th Jan., 2000 remanded this issue back after setting it aside. In the set aside the AO, while giving effect to the order of the learned CIT(A) issued a letters dt. 12th Dec, 2000 requiring the assessee to file complete details of payment and interest of Rs. 22,14,293. The assessee company replied in detail vide letters dt. 18th Dec, 2000 and dt. 18t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2008)304ITR354(Jodh.)
1. This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on 18th Oct., 2006 in relation to asst. Yr. 2002-03 2. First ground is against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 2,50,823, which was made by the AO on account of assumed cost of acquisition.3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee had shown sale proceeds of shops at Rs. 25,84,000 with cost of construction at Rs. 26,45,100 thereby declaring loss of Rs. 61,000 under the head "Capital gain". Since the books of account were not properly maintained, inasmuch as there was difference in the total cost of construction shown by the assessee in the balance sheet, and the amount shown during the course of survey, the AO referred the matter to the DVO. The report of the DVO was received on 16th Feb., 2005 showing the value of the property at Rs. 47,86,849 whereas the value of this property was shown by the assessee at Rs. 54,26,804. On being called upon to explain the difference, the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!