IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2058/PUN/2017 िनधा(cid:6981)रण वष(cid:6981) / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. M. B. Pat i l Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Constructions, Aurangabad.

Shop No.115/116, SFS Complex, Jalna Road, Cross English School, Aurangabad- 431001. PAN : AAECM0806B Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2078/PUN/2017 िनधा(cid:6981)रण वष(cid:6981) / Assessment Year : 2013-14 ACIT, Central Circle-1 , Vs. M/s. M. B. Patil Aurangabad. Constructions, Shop No.115/116, SFS Complex, Jalna Road, Cross English School, Aurangabad- 431001. PAN : AAECM0806B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kalrav Mehrotra Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari &

Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 12.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 05.05.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue are directed against the order dated 30.06.2017 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-12, Pune [‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year

2013-14.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company and stated to be engaged in the business of execution of civil and infrastructure development contracts. The return of income was filed on 30.11.2013 declaring total income of Rs.1,51,62,266/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued respectively. After considering the reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT Act determining total income at Rs.54,83,58,570/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.1,51,62,226/-. The above assessed income includes following additions on account of :-

(a) Disallowance u/s 40A(3) of Rs.5,12,194/-, (b) Interest income of Rs.53,32,948/- which remained to be added back by the assessee, (c) Disallowance of agricultural income of Rs.6,00,000/-, (d) Disallowance of other expenses of Rs.35,00,000/-, (e) Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of Rs.49,59,14,779/- and (f) Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of Rs.2,73,36,424/-

3. In first appeal, after considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) reduced the addition made u/s 68 of the IT Act on account of agricultural income of Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-, Ld. CIT(A) also reduced the addition made on account of other expenses of Rs.35,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/-. However, the addition of Rs.5,12,194/- made u/s 40A(3) and assessee’s claim of deduction of Rs.2,73,36,424/- u/s 80IA was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. However, Ld. CIT(A) also deleted the addition of Rs.49,59,14,779/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 2(22)(e) of the IT Act which is against the Revenue, the Revenue is in cross appeal before this Tribunal.

4. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2058/PUN/2017.

5. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

“1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Pune, has erred in law as well as in facts by confirming the disallowance of a sum of Rs.5,12,194/- made under section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the learned A.O., despite the fact that the evidence in the form of vouchers of Rs.3,42,800/- were submitted during the appellate proceedings.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Pune, has erred in law as well as in facts by confirming the addition of Rs.3,00,000/- made under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, by treating agricultural income as cash credit.

3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Pune, has erred in law as well as in facts by confirming the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of disallowance made under various heads.

4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Pune, has erred in law as well as in facts by confirming the disallowance of assessee's claim of a