Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut v. V.A.M. Resorts And Hotels P Ltd - 2019-LL-0826-34

Citation	2019-LL-0826-34
Appellant Name	Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut
Respondent Name	V.A.M. Resorts And Hotels P Ltd.
Court	HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	26/08/2019
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	agricultural income • land development • sale proceed • development expense • consequential addition
Bot Summary:	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.

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

Metadata

Judgment