Unsubstantiated receipt additions fail without corroboration, while section 43CA applies once stamp value exceeds declared consideration.

Alleged suppression of construction receipts could not support an addition where the Revenue relied only on variations in agreement values and produced no seized material, parallel books, cash trail, purchaser enquiry, or other corroboration; the addition was deleted. Payment to a related concern was also not disallowable where it was recorded in sale documents, routed through banking channels, and not shown to be bogus or returned to the assessee; that addition was deleted. By contrast, the section 43CA addition was sustained because the declared consideration was lower than stamp duty value and no statutory exception or excess stamp value was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the addition sustained towards alleged suppression of construction receipts was justified; (ii) whether the disallowance of payment made to M/s. Vetri Reals was sustainable; and (iii) whether the addition made under section 43CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was liable to be confirmed.

Issue (i): whether the addition sustained towards alleged suppression of construction receipts was justified.

Analysis: The addition was founded only on variations in construction consideration mentioned in agreements with different purchasers. No seized material, parallel books, loose sheets, cash trail, enquiry from purchasers, or other corroborative evidence showed receipt of unaccounted money over and above the disclosed consideration. A survey statement or admission, by itself, could not sustain the addition in the absence of independent support. Differences in price could arise from commercial factors such as bargaining, timing, location, and market conditions.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 39,79,756/- was unsustainable and was directed to be deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the disallowance of payment made to M/s. Vetri Reals was sustainable.

Analysis: The payment was reflected in the sale documents, was routed through banking channels, and the recipient was identifiable. The Revenue did not establish that the expenditure was bogus, fictitious, sham, or returned to the assessee. No enquiry was made with the recipient concern. In the absence of adverse material, complete disallowance merely because the exact nature of services was not proved to the satisfaction of the Revenue was not warranted.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 24,44,375/- was not justified and was directed to be deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether the addition made under section 43CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was liable to be confirmed.

Analysis: Section 43CA creates a deeming fiction by substituting the stamp valuation authority's value as the full value of consideration where declared consideration for stock-in-trade land or building is lower. The assessee did not dispute the factual difference, did not establish that the stamp duty value was excessive, and did not show that any statutory exception applied. A general plea of market recession could not override the statutory mandate.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 12,61,220/- under section 43CA was rightly sustained and was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of the first two additions, while the addition under section 43CA was upheld, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax addition based on alleged undisclosed receipts or expenditure cannot be sustained without corroborative material showing actual unaccounted receipt or bogus outgo, whereas a statutory deeming provision must be applied according to its terms once the prescribed conditions are met.

---