Order in contravention of the provisions of S. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DIVISION BENCH, “B” CHANDIGARH

BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 982/C HD /2019
Assessment Year : 2015-16

M/s Ropar Properties and Builders Pvt.
Ltd.,
SCO 12-16, Sunny Enclave,
Ropar.
PAN NO: AAACR6395N
Appellant

Vs

Income Tax Officer,
Ward-2(2),
Ropar.
Respondent
Hearing through video Conferencing 

Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA
Revenue by : Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl.CIT

Date of Hearing : 04.03.2021
Date of Pronouncement : 24.05.2021

Order 

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.04.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’].

2. In this appeal the assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:-

“ 1. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) in Appeal No. 10519/17-18 has erred in passing that order in contravention of the provisions of S. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in converting the impugned assessment from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny even when there did not exist circumstances justifying the said conversion and also there was no incriminating or credible material in the hands of the Ld. AO which justified the above referred conversion and therefore the impugned assessment deserve to be quashed.

3. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in disallowing expenses of Rs. 4,63,553/- out of the total addition of Rs. 15,45,176/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of alleged non deduction of TDS on the expenses claimed even when the payments made to various parties were below the threshold limit for deducting TDS and the appellant was not compulsorily required to deduct TDS on the same.

4. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in disallowing expenses of Rs. 11,11,174/- out of the total addition of Rs. 3,70,579/- u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of alleged non deduction of TDS on the advertisement expenditure claimed by the appellant.

5. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 1,80,190/- on account of claim of expenses towards donation in the group "Development Expenses Govind Valley"

6. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- on adhoc basis by disallowing certain development expenses claimed by the appellant on account of non furnishing of cash bill vouchers as per ledgers even when the copies of ledger account of various development expenses along with the cash vouchers were duly produced and verified by the Ld. AO.

7. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the ground of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.” 

To know more in details find the attachment file