Court No. - 35
Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 283 of 2017 Appellant :- Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Meerut Respondent :- M/S V.A.M. Resorts And Hotels P Ltd.
Counsel for Appellant :- Manu Ghildyal Counsel for Respondent :- Suyash Agrawal,Suyash Agarwal Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Manu Ghildyal, learned Counsel for the revenue and Sri R.R.Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned Counsel for the assessee.
This appeal was admitted on 04.10.2017 on the following substantial questions of law:-
"(1) Whether the Ld. ITAT has erred in law in deleting the order u/s 263 on the issue of development expenses when it was clear that only a small portion of such development expenses was actually related to land development receipts?
(2) Whether the Ld. ITAT has erred in law in deleting the order u/s 263 on the issue of agricultural income when it was clear that assessee only purchased the land on which crops were sown and sale proceed of such crops does not constitute agricultural income?
(3) Whether the Ld. ITAT has erred in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the fact that there was a difference between gross receipts as per 26AS and gross receipts declared by the assessee when the assessee did not furnish any reconciliation statement to explain the difference?"
Sri Manu Ghildyal, learned Counsel for the revenue submits that the order under challenge arising out of proceedings under Section 263/143(3) of the Income Tax Act dated 07.03.2014 had been passed by the assessing officer. The Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the assessee on 23.03.2019 on the ground that the order under Section 263 of the Act had already been set aside, as such no addition can be made.
Sri R.R. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee has placed on record the order of this court passed in Income Tax Appeal No.107 of 2015 dated 20.08.2019 whereby the appeal of the department was dismissed wherein the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act held to be bad.
Hence, the consequential order passed by the assessing officer is also bad.
In view of the above, the appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
The questions of law are decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 S.P.