Hindustan Earth Movers Pvt.Ltd.,, ... vs Department Of Income Tax

ी एन0एस0 सैनी, लेखा सद य एवं ी कुल भारत, या%यक सद य के सम& BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1379/Ahd/2011 With CO No.116/Ahd/2011 %नधा)रण वष)/Assessment Year: 2007-08

Asstt. Commissioner of Income M/s Hindustan Earth Movers Tax, Circle-5, Vs Pvt. Ltd., Baroda. 1, Ashwamegh, Samrajya Complex, Munjmahuda Road, Baroda. PAN : AAACH 8593 A

अपीलाथ,/ (Appellant) -.यथ,/ (Respondent)

Revenue by : Shri M.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Assessee(s) by: Shri S.N. Soparkar & Shri P.M. Mehta, A.Rs.

सन ु वाई क तार ख/ Dateof Hearing : 08/04/2015 घोषणा क तार ख / Date of Pronouncement: 29/04/2015

आदे श/O R D E R

PER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-V, Baroda dated 14.03.2011.

2. The ground of appeal of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.72,44,000/- made on account of profit on sale of plot of land.

ITA No.1379/Ahd/2011 & CO No.116/Ahd/2011 M/s. Hindustan Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd.

For AY 2007-08 2

3. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings the A.O. required the assessee to produce sale deeds of all properties sold during the year. The assessee submitted the details of properties sold in the year. The A.O. observed that the assessee along with confirming party, Tirupati Corporation sold a plot in RS No.33 to Tirupati Prime Estate Pvt. Ltd. and as per sale deed at page no.14, the purchaser had paid consideration of Rs.46,08,000/- by cheque No.999484 dated 09.05.2006 and Rs.72,00,000/- by cheque No.992482 dated 09.05.2006 towards purchase of FSI. The assessee has disclosed only Rs.45,64,000/-. Therefore, the difference of Rs.72,44,000/- (Rs.72,00,000 + 46,08,000 - Rs.45,64,000) was added by the A.O.

4. On appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that another group concern M/s. Aditi Construction had received Rs.1,60,00,000/- from M/s. Shree Tirupati Corporation for sale of land as per decree of Court as under :-

Name Amount (Rs.) Remarks HEMPL 4564000 Offered to tax in the case of HEMPL M/s Aditi 11436000 Offered to tax in the case of Aditi Construction Construction.

5. It was further submitted that payments of Rs.46,08,000/- and Rs.72,00,000/- by M/s. Trupati Corporation have not been received by the assessee and the assessee has nothing to do with these payments and, therefore, the A.O. has no jurisdiction for making the addition. The assessee also submitted copy of development agreement dated 18.07.2005 of transferring developing rights of plot no. 1 & 5 to Tirupati Corporation and also the order of the court dated 17.10.2006 regarding the understanding between M/s Aditi Construction and Hindustan Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd.

ITA No.1379/Ahd/2011 & CO No.116/Ahd/2011 M/s. Hindustan Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd.

For AY 2007-08 3

6. In the remand report the A.O. reiterated his earlier stand. It was also stated that as per M.O.U. dated 27.01.1997 M/s Aditi Construction was supposed to purchase land RS No. 33 & 34 Plot Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5 from Hindustan Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd. but it expressed its inability to pay the sale consideration and thereafter as per revised MOU Hindustan Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd. was supposed to sell plot nos. 1, 2 & 5 and sale proceeds were to be distributed in the ratio of 2/3rd to Aditi Construction and 1/3rd to Hindustan Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd. The A.O. added the sale deeds referred to survey No.33/p and not 33 & 34 and there is no reference of plot no.33 in the sale deed and that in the sale deed there is no mention of apportionment of receipts.

7. In response to the remand report, it was submitted that the development right for plot nos.1 & 5 were sold to Tirupati Corporation for Rs.1.60 crores and in view of the Court's decision, the share of Hindustan Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd. was Rs.45,64,000/- which was reflected in its books. It was submitted that in para No.3 of the development agreement between Tirupati Corporation and Hindustan Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd. it was stated as under :-

"Whereas by virtue of this Development Agreement, the party of the first part hereby giving the authority to the party of the second part to move the Sign Board over this land and they are also authorized to book the members in the Firm name, i.e. in M/s Shri Tirupati Corporation. And they are also authorized to collect the collection/money of any amount towards the cost of the land and F.S.I. of the land towards construction. Which will be carried out towards the land which is owned by the party of the First Part."

8. Therefore, it was submitted that Hindustan Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd. was merely a confirming party in regard to agreements for sale of FSI and not received any amount on the said transactions. It was ITA No.1379/Ahd/2011 & CO No.116/Ahd/2011 M/s. Hindustan Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd.

For AY 2007-08 4

submitted that Tirupati Construction sold the FSI to M/s. Tirupati Prime Estate Pvt. Ltd. and that both the payments of Rs.72 lakhs and Rs.46,08,000/- were received by Tirupati Corporation and these facts are verifiable from the copy of bank account of Tirupati Prime Estate Ltd. and the sales account of Tirupati Corporation and the account of Tirupati Prime Estate in the books of Tirupati Corporation. It was, therefore, pleaded that the addition should be deleted.

9. The CIT(A), after considering the submissions, held as under :-

"4.3 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the assessment order, the submissions of the appellant and the remand report. I have also called for the assessment records and examined them. The contentions and the response of the appellant was discussed with the AO who was also present and the submissions of the appellant were verified from the assessment records. From perusal of the sale deeds and other documents, it appears that AO seems to have mixed up the facts in the assessment order. The Development Agreement dt. 18.07.05 between HEMPL & M/s Shree Tirupati Corporation stipulates that land area measuring 4548.3 sq. meter in R.S. No.33 Plot No.1 & 5 at village: Akota, Akota Mujmahuda Road has been sold by HEMPL to M/s Tirupati Corporation for Rs.1,60,00,000/- and that the seller was to receive Rs.32 lakhs during March '05 to June '05 and the balance Rs.1,28,00,000/- was to be recovered from customers towards units booked by them and that HEMPL will have full lien over the construction carried out by M/s Tirupati Corporation till the above payment is completed. Further as per out of court settlement dt. 17.10.06 M/s Aditi Construction is to receive 2/3rd and HEMPL 1/3rd of the payments for sale of plot no.1 and 5. HEMPL received Rs.4564000/- for sale of development right and M/s Aditi Construction received Rs.11436000/- and the receipts were offered for taxation in the return for AY 07-08. It is a fact that as per para 3 of the development agreement dt. 18.07.05, HEMPL has transferred the developmental right as well s the FSI for total price of Rs.1.6 crores.

4.3.1 By sale-deed dt. 16.5.06, HEMPL (mentioned as seller) and Shri Tirupati Corporation (Mentioned as party of the second part and developer and confirming party) sold FSI rights in respect of office no.105-106, 205-206, 305-306 & 405-406 to ITA No.1379/Ahd/2011 & CO No.116/Ahd/2011 M/s. Hindustan Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd.

For AY 2007-08 5

Tirupati Prime Estate P. Ltd. For Rs.4608000/- and at page no.14 of the said agreement the purchaser has paid to the seller Rs.46,08,000/- vide cheques No.99484 dt. 9.5.06 drawn on Canara Bank, Alkapuri for purchase of FSI and the seller also acknowledged the receipts as per page-15 of the agreement. Similarly vide sale-deed dt. 16.5.06, HEMPL (mentioned as seller) and Shri Tirupati Corporation (mentioned as party of the second part and developer and confirming party) sold FSI rights of showroom on first floor for Rs.72 lakhs for showroom No.101-104. The AO after perusal of return noticed receipts of only Rs.4564000/- and thus he balance Rs.7244000/- (11808000 - 4564000) was brought to tax by him. The AO apparently has mixed up the proceeds from sale of developmental right with sale of FSI in relation to plot no.1 and 5. The appellant has argued that no receipts in respect of sale of FSI have been received by HEMPL or M/s Aditi Construction and that the entire money was received by M/s Tirupati Corporation from M/s Tirupati Prime Estate P. Ltd. The ld. AR also furnished the audit report of the Tirupati Corporation and the ledger account of appellant in its books and also the ledger account of Tirupati Prime Estate to show that the amount was indeed received by M/s Tirupati Corp and that Rs.1.6 crores paid for developmental rights was also claimed as expenditure by Tirupati Corporation.

4.4 The only fact which arises for consideration is that as per sale of FSI agreement HEMPL is mentioned as the seller and that Shree Tirupati is the confirming party and that as per page 14 of sale deed (concerning FSI relating to office 105, 106, 205, 206, 305, 306, 405, 406) the purchaser has paid Rs.4608000/- to the seller vide cheque no.99484 dt. 9.5.06 and further vide page no.12 of second FSI deed for space of show rooms (101, 102, 103, 104), the seller is to receive Rs.72 lakhs vide cheque no.992482 dt. 9.5.06. Both the agreements mention that HEMPL is to receive Rs.4608000/- and Rs.72 lakhs for FSI relating to plot no.1&5 and there is no mention of any receipt by M/s. Tirupati Corporation.

4.5 It is vehemently argued before me that the development agreement was between the appellant and Tirupati Corporation to develop a complex and that till complete payment of Rs.1.6 crores was not received, Tirupati Corporation cannot be shown as seller in the agreement for sale of FSI and in any case the land was in the name of the appellant. It is argued that Tirupati Corporation is the transferor of FSI and that no amount has been received by the appellant on sale of FSI. It is also informed that similar development agreements and sale of FSI agreements are ITA No.1379/Ahd/2011 & CO No.116/Ahd/2011 M/s. Hindustan Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd.

For AY 2007-08 6

executed by builders/developers in Baroda and that this fact could be got verified.

4.6 From above undisputed facts/conclusions emerge:

(i) That by virtue of development agreement the appellant had handed over the possession of plot No.1 & 5 to M/s Tirupati Corporation and the latter was permitted to develop a complex on the said property and that the appellant had lien on the said land for period till it receives Rs.1.6 crores. The agreement also mentions that M/s Tirupati Corporation is allowed to collect money towards cost of land and FSI. Further in development agreement, para 3 it is mentioned that the appellant had agreed and bound himself to any sale-deed or tripartite agreement in regard to ownership of flat/shops subject to fulfillment of land payments.

(ii) There is no denial that M/s Tirupati Corporation has received Rs.4608000/- vide cheque no.99484 dt. 9.5.06 and further Rs.72 lakhs vide cheque no.992482 dt. 9.5.06 through two sale of FSI agreements and these have also been offered for tax.

(iii) The contentions of the appellant that its name as seller in the FSI agreements was only with the purpose that it was the owner of land in Municipal records and also because complete payment of land was not received from M/s Tirupati Corporation, appear to be correct.

(iv) If the contention of the appellant is not accepted then there would be no need for Tirupati Corporation to pay Rs.1.6 crores for land by way of development agreement. The fact is the appellant and Aditi Corporation have receive d Rs.1.6 crores towards sale of land and FSI from M/s Tirupati Corporation.

(v) It is not the argument of the AO nor it is established that there is a collusion between appellant and Tirupati Corporation or that these are associate concerns to manipulate receipts in the hands of the latter.

(vi) There is no apparent purpose or reason for which the sale of FSI amounts should be received by the appellant. The complex has been developed by Tirupati Corporation who has incurred the entire cost of construction and has also secured purchasers for flats/shops in the complex. There is no evidence on record that the appellant has become entitled to any further receipts on sale of FSI.

ITA No.1379/Ahd/2011 & CO No.116/Ahd/2011 M/s. Hindustan Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd.

For AY 2007-08 7

4.7 In view of the foregoing the action of AO in taxing Rs.72,44,000/- as undisclosed sales in the hands of the appellant is not correct and the addition is thus directed to be deleted. Ground No.1 is allowed."

10. Departmental Representative supported the order of A.O. and Authorised Representative supported the order of the CIT(A).

11. We have heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case, the AO enhanced the capital gain shown by the assessee by Rs.72,44,000/- on the ground that as per two sale deed of sale of FSI dated 16.5.2006, FSI were sold for Rs.46,08,000/- and Rs.72,00,000/-, and in the both the sale deeds, the assessee's name appeared as seller. The assessee has shown the sale consideration of Rs.45,64,000/- only. Therefore, the AO added Rs.72,44,000/- to the income of the assessee.

12. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the above addition by observing as under:

"4.3 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the assessment order, the submissions of the appellant and the remand report. I have also called for the assessment records and examined them. The contentions and the response of the appellant was discussed with the AO who was also present and the submissions of the appellant were verified from the assessment records. From perusal of the sale deeds and other documents, it appears that AO seems to have mixed up the facts in the assessment order. The Development Agreement dt. 18.07.05 between HEMPL & M/s Shree Tirupati Corporation stipulates that land area measuring 4548.3 sq. meter in R.S. No.33 Plot No.1 & 5 at village: Akota, Akota Mujmahuda Road has been sold by HEMPL to M/s Tirupati Corporation for Rs.1,60,00,000/- and that the seller was to receive Rs.32 lakhs during March '05 to June '05 and the balance Rs.1,28,00,000/- was to be recovered from customers towards units booked by them and that HEMPL will have full lien over the construction carried out by M/s Tirupati Corporation till the above payment is completed. Further as per out of court settlement dt. 17.10.06 M/s Aditi Construction is to receive 2/3rd and HEMPL 1/3rd of the ITA No.1379/Ahd/2011 & CO No.116/Ahd/2011 M/s. Hindustan Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd.

For AY 2007-08 8

payments for sale of plot no.1 and 5. HEMPL received Rs.4564000/- for sale of development right and M/s Aditi Construction received Rs.11436000/- and the receipts were offered for taxation in the return for AY 07-08. It is a fact that as per para 3 of the development agreement dt. 18.07.05, HEMPL has transferred the developmental right as well s the FSI for total price of Rs.1.6 crores.

4.3.1 By sale-deed dt. 16.5.06, HEMPL (mentioned as seller) and Shri Tirupati Corporation (Mentioned as party of the second part and developer and confirming party) sold FSI rights in respect of office no.105-106, 205-206, 305-306 & 405-406 to Tirupati Prime Estate P. Ltd. For Rs.4608000/- and at page no.14 of the said agreement the purchaser has paid to the seller Rs.46,08,000/- vide cheques No.99484 dt. 9.5.06 drawn on Canara Bank, Alkapuri for purchase of FSI and the seller also acknowledged the receipts as per page-15 of the agreement. Similarly vide sale-deed dt. 16.5.06, HEMPL (mentioned as seller) and Shri Tirupati Corporation (mentioned as party of the second part and developer and confirming party) sold FSI rights of showroom on first floor for Rs.72 lakhs for showroom No.101-104. The AO after perusal of return noticed receipts of only Rs.4564000/- and thus he balance Rs.7244000/- (11808000 - 4564000) was brought to tax by him. The AO apparently has mixed up the proceeds from sale of developmental right with sale of FSI in relation to plot no.1 and 5. The appellant has argued that no receipts in respect of sale of FSI have been received by HEMPL or M/s Aditi Construction and that the entire money was received by M/s Tirupati Corporation from M/s Tirupati Prime Estate P. Ltd. The ld. AR also furnished the audit report of the Tirupati Corporation and the ledger account of appellant in its books and also the ledger account of Tirupati Prime Estate to show that the amount was indeed received by M/s Tirupati Corp and that Rs.1.6 crores paid for developmental rights was also claimed as expenditure by Tirupati Corporation.

4.4 The only fact which arises for consideration is that as per sale of FSI agreement HEMPL is mentioned as the seller and that Shree Tirupati is the confirming party and that as per page 14 of sale deed (concerning FSI relating to office 105, 106, 205, 206, 305, 306, 405, 406) the purchaser has paid Rs.4608000/- to the seller vide cheque no.99484 dt. 9.5.06 and further vide page no.12 of second FSI deed for space of show rooms (101, 102, 103, 104), the seller is to receive Rs.72 lakhs vide cheque no.992482 dt. 9.5.06. Both the agreements mention that HEMPL is to receive Rs.4608000/- and Rs.72 lakhs for FSI relating to plot ITA No.1379/Ahd/2011 & CO No.116/Ahd/2011 M/s. Hindustan Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd.

For AY 2007-08 9

no.1&5 and there is no mention of any receipt by M/s. Tirupati Corporation.

4.5 It is vehemently argued before me that the development agreement was between the appellant and Tirupati Corporation to develop a complex and that till complete payment of Rs.1.6 crores was not received, Tirupati Corporation cannot be shown as seller in the agreement for sale of FSI and in any case the land was in the name of the appellant. It is argued that Tirupati Corporation is the transferor of FSI and that no amount has been received by the appellant on sale of FSI. It is also informed that similar development agreements and sale of FSI agreements are executed by builders/developers in Baroda and that this fact could be got verified.

4.6 From above undisputed facts/conclusions emerge:

(i) That by virtue of development agreement the appellant had handed over the possession of plot No.1 & 5 to M/s Tirupati Corporation and the latter was permitted to develop a complex on the said property and that the appellant had lien on the said land for period till it receives Rs.1.6 crores. The agreement also mentions that M/s Tirupati Corporation is allowed to collect money towards cost of land and FSI. Further in development agreement, para 3 it is mentioned that the appellant had agreed and bound himself to any sale-deed or tripartite agreement in regard to ownership of flat/shops subject to fulfillment of land payments.

(ii) There is no denial that M/s Tirupati Corporation has received Rs.4608000/- vide cheque no.99484 dt. 9.5.06 and further Rs.72 lakhs vide cheque no.992482 dt. 9.5.06 through two sale of FSI agreements and these have also been offered for tax.

(iii) The contentions of the appellant that its name as seller in the FSI agreements was only with the purpose that it was the owner of land in Municipal records and also because complete payment of land was not received from M/s Tirupati Corporation, appear to be correct.

(iv) If the contention of the appellant is not accepted then there would be no need for Tirupati Corporation to pay Rs.1.6 crores for land by way of development agreement. The fact is the appellant and Aditi Corporation have receive d Rs.1.6 crores towards sale of land and FSI from M/s Tirupati Corporation.

ITA No.1379/Ahd/2011 & CO No.116/Ahd/2011 M/s. Hindustan Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd.

For AY 2007-08 10

(v) It is not the argument of the AO nor it is established that there is a collusion between appellant and Tirupati Corporation or that these are associate concerns to manipulate receipts in the hands of the latter.

(vi) There is no apparent purpose or reason for which the sale of FSI amounts should be received by the appellant. The complex has been developed by Tirupati Corporation who has incurred the entire cost of construction and has also secured purchasers for flats/shops in the complex. There is no evidence on record that the appellant has become entitled to any further receipts on sale of FSI.

4.7 In view of the foregoing the action of AO in taxing Rs.72,44,000/- as undisclosed sales in the hands of the appellant is not correct and the addition is thus directed to be deleted. Ground No.1 is allowed."

13. The DR relied on the above order of the AO.

14. We find that no specific defect in the findings of the CIT(A) could be pointed out by the DR. We find that it is not in dispute that the assessee had given a plot of land to M/s.Tirupati Corporation for development. As the entire payment for this transfer was not received by the assessee, the assessee had a lien over the said plot of land and in government records, the name of the assessee continued as registered owner over the said plot of land. M/s.Tirupati Corporation constructed complex which was the property of M/s.Tirupati Corporation. The FSI over the said construction also belonged to M/s.Tirupati Corporation. The said M/s.Tirupati Corporation vide two sale deeds in question sold the FSI for Rs.46,08,000/- and Rs.72,00,000/-. Name of the assessee appeared on those sale deeds as a vendor along with the name of M/s.Tirupati Corporation as confirming party, because, the title over the said land was not yet recorded in the government records in the name of M/s.Tirupati Corporation. The entire consideration of Rs.46,08,000/- and Rs.72,00,000/- was received by M/s.Tirupati Corporation, and they ITA No.1379/Ahd/2011 & CO No.116/Ahd/2011 M/s. Hindustan Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd.

For AY 2007-08 11

have duly shown the same as their income in their return of income. No material has been brought on record by the Revenue to show that any part of the said consideration of Rs.46,08,000/- and Rs.72,00,000/- was actually received by the assessee or the assessee was the owner of the complex, in respect of which FSI was sold. The sale consideration of Rs.45,64,000/- which was shown by the assessee in its return of income was in respect of sale of land and had nothing to do with the sale of FSI of Rs.46,08,000/- and Rs.72,00,000/-. Thus, the AO clearly erred in adjusting the sale consideration of Rs.45,64,000/- with the sale consideration of Rs.46,08,000/- and Rs.72,00,000/-.

15. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find no error in the findings of the CIT(A), which is confirmed. The ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

16. In the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, the assessee has raised the following grounds:-

"1. The Ld. CIT(A)-V, Baroda has grossly erred in law and in facts in not deciding on merits the second ground of appeal filed before him contending that the amount of Rs.31,00,000/- added by the Ld. AO in the case of M/s. Aditi Construction which has been offered to tax in the case of Hindustan Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent) has resulted into double taxation.

While passing appellate order in Appeal No.CAB(A)/V/179/09-10 Dt. 27/1/11 in the case of M/s. Aditi Construction for A.Y. 2007-08 the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.31,00,000/- out of total sales amount of Rs.1,33,00,000/- in respect of Plot No.3 of R.S. No.33 paiki of Akota, Baroda directing the AO to verify the case of Hindustan Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent) and to delete the addition if it is taxed again in the case of Respondent.

All the details had been filed before the Ld. CIT(A) establishing that the total amount of Rs.1,33,00,000/- has been offered to tax in the case of Hindustan Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent).

ITA No.1379/Ahd/2011 & CO No.116/Ahd/2011 M/s. Hindustan Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd.

For AY 2007-08 12

Considering the facts of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not deciding the 2nd Ground of appeal on merits in the case of Respondent.

2. The respondent crave leave to add, to alter, to amend and/or withdraw the ground of cross objection either before or at the time of appeal hearing."

17. The AR of the assessee submitted that as per deed of compromise approved by the Court, M/s.Aditi Construction has given up the right of plot no.3, and that M/s. Aditi Construction was entitled to receive Rs.31,00,000/- which has been received from M/s.Shree Tirupati infrastructure. It is submitted that as regards sale price of plot no.3, Shree Tirupati Infrastructure has made the payment as per decree of the Court as under:

Payment Made to Amount (Rs.) HEMPL Rs.1,02,00,000/- M/s.Aditi Construction Rs. 31,00,000/- Total Rs.1,33,00,000/-

It is submitted that M/s.Aditi Construction has transferred the amount of Rs.31,00,000/- by journal entry in its books of account to HEMPL, the assessee company and the details are given at page nos.57 and 58 of the paper book. It is further submitted that the assessee company has credited total amount of Rs.1,33,00,000/- in its books of account and transferred to Profit & Loss A/c. as sale of plot no.3, as given in page no.53 of the paper book. Accordingly, the assessee-company has offered to tax Rs.1,33,00,000/- in its return of income. The CIT(A) vide order no.CAB(A)-V/117/09-10 dt.27/1/201 for A.Y.2007-08 in the case of M/s.Aditi Construction confirmed the addition of Rs.31,00,000/- directing the assessee to approach before the AO in the case of HEMPL and the AO shall after verification reduce the assessed income of Rs.31,00,000/- in the case of HEMPL if it is found taxed twice. The AR ITA No.1379/Ahd/2011 & CO No.116/Ahd/2011 M/s. Hindustan Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd.

For AY 2007-08 13

of the assessee submitted that against confirmed addition of Rs.31,00,000/- the appeal before the Tribunal has been filed in ITA No.688/Ahd/2011 in the case of M/s.Aditi Construction, and the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee by allowing the appeal vide its order dated 11.7.2014, and accordingly, the matter has been referred back to the CIT(A). A copy of the order of the Tribunal is placed at serial no.34 of the paper book. In this view of the matter, the AR of the assessee submitted that he is not pressing the cross objection for adjudication.

18. In view of the above submissions of the AR of the assessee, we dismiss the cross objection filed by the assessee, as not pressed.

19. In the result, appeal of the Revenue and the Cross objection of the assessee both are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Court on Wednesday the 29th April, 2015 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/ Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) ( N.S. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER