2020 (1) TMI 1024 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of assessee on revenue's appeal, citing lack of evidence and estimation basis

M/s. Mangalmurti Realtors Versus ITO-Ward-5, Panvel 610, Mumbai And (Vice-Versa)

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals and allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the addition on account of differences in rates charged to ... Rate difference in sale of flats/shops - Disallowance on account of difference in rate per sq.ft. charged to various customers vis-à-vis the market rates per sq.ft. on the date of booking by these customers - HELD THAT:- Since the matter of controversy is quite similar to the case Triveni Construction Vs. DCIT & Group concerns [2019 (6) TMI 1430 - ITAT MUMBAI]therefore, we are of the view that the finding in this case is quite applicable to the facts of the case also. The Hon’ble ITAT has relied upon decision Neelkamal Realtors & Erectors India (P.) Ltd. [2013 (8) TMI 557 - ITAT MUMBAI] & M/s. Runwal Projects Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (7) TMI 1814 - ITAT MUMBAI] . Since the matter of controversy is the same, therefore, in view of the finding given by Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case we delete the addition raised by AO and decide this issue in favour of the assessee against the revenue. Issues Involved:1. Addition on account of difference in rate per sq.ft. charged to various customers vis-à-vis market rates.2. Disallowance on account of alleged bogus purchases.Detailed Analysis:Issue No. 1: Addition on account of difference in rate per sq.ft. charged to various customers vis-à-vis market ratesThe assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 1,38,65,636/- due to differences in the rate per sq.ft. charged to various customers compared to market rates on the booking date. The assessee argued that the addition was based on surmises and conjectures, and the variation in rates was due to factors like market conditions, sale of furnished vs. unfurnished flats, and bargaining. The Assessing Officer (AO) calculated the difference in rates, allowing a 15% discount, and added Rs. 3,13,85,432/- to the income, which the CIT(A) reduced to Rs. 1,38,65,636/-.The Tribunal found that the AO made the addition on an estimation basis without proper inquiry and relied on the decision in the case of Triveni Construction Vs. DCIT & Group concerns (ITA. No.3779/Mum/2017 & Others), where it was held that without cogent evidence of on-money receipts, such additions are not justified. The Tribunal noted that section 43CA, which deals with the difference between the sale consideration and stamp duty value, was not applicable for the assessment year in question (A.Y. 2012-13). Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition and decided the issue in favor of the assessee.Issue No. 2: Disallowance on account of alleged bogus purchasesThis issue was not pressed by the assessee's representative, and hence, it was decided in favor of the revenue against the assessee.Issue No. 3 & 4: Additional GroundsSince Issue No. 2 was decided in favor of the assessee, Issues No. 3 and 4 were considered academic and were not addressed.ITA No. 4400/Mum/2017The facts and issues in this appeal were similar to those in ITA No. 3787/M/2017. Therefore, the Tribunal applied the same findings and dismissed the revenue's appeal while allowing the assessee's appeal.ConclusionThe Tribunal ordered the appeals filed by the revenue to be dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee to be allowed, with the order pronounced in the open court on 13/01/2020.