TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 362
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o appreciate that - a. The appellant was not related to M/s. New Planet Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and the transaction was at Arm's Length and therefore, the payment made to them was a genuine business expenditure. b. There was no reason for the appellant for manipulation of the agreement between the appellant and New Planet Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and thus, the manipulation was done by that party in order to suit its business interest. c. The various discrepancies shown by the appellant in the agreement produced by New Planet clearly indicated that they had manipulated the agreement and the copy produced by them was not a genuine document. d. The appellant had paid the total amount as agreed @5.50 lakhs per acre during Financial Year Ending 31st March 2008, 31st March 2009 & 31st March 2010, to that party through banking channel and that party had accepted the total amount as claimed by the appellant and this itself indicates that the claim of the appellant was genuine. e. Had the appellant agreed with new planet for Rs. 3,20,665/- per acre, the total consideration paid during Financial Year Ending 31st March 2008, 31st March 2009 & 31st March 2010, by the appellant wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd are as under. The assessee is stated to be engaged in the business of land aggregation. It is stated that she is a resident of Talegaon, Distt.-Pune for last number of years. The assessee is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of lands in the said area. It is stated that on identification of a piece of land and a proper search of land records, legitimate claims of relatives & others, verification of other commitments by the owners etc., with the help of a local mediator/Agent, she gives advance to the owner and enters into an agreement/MOU with the owners of land. It is stated that the corporate/builders which wish to buy contagious, large piece of land and as it is not possible to deal with individual farmers and land owners directly negotiate deal with the assessee but final sale deed is made with original owners or farmers of the land. The assessee after notifying the area indulged into the land aggregation and after successful aggregation of land, it is stated that the assessee enters into an agreement with some corporate groups or big builders to sale the land. The assessee entered into an MOU with various farmers of the land at Navalkhumbre and the farmers in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch 117.97 acres were sold during the year and accordingly, the assessee made the profit of Rs. 6,00,000/- per acre. The assessee also claimed that she was required to pay an additional compensation of Rs. 1 Crore to M/s. Aanchal Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 1,80,00,000/- to farmers, over and above the cost of Rs. 31,00,000/- per acre as mentioned above. In sum and substance the assessee claimed additional expenditure of Rs. 2,80,00,000/-. 6. It was claimed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer that two companies/entities namely M/s. New Planet Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (in short M/s. New Planet) and M/s. Aanchal Properties Pvt. Ltd. (in short M/s. Aanchal Properties) had already acquired the rights of those lands by paying token amounts to the farmers and hence, the assessee had to purchase the rights acquired by those two companies in the said lands and accordingly, the assessee paid Rs. 5,50,000/- per acre as the prices for acquiring the rights in the land, aggregating Rs. 8,03,96,000/-. Before the Assessing Officer the assessee filed the copy of MOU with M/s. New Planet and M/s. Aanchal Properties and both the MOUs were executed on 01-06-2007. The Assessing Officer has obs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer in Mumbai, the date of agreement was shown as 03-06-2007 and amount payable towards cost of rights acquired was shown at Rs. 3,20,000/- per acre. The Assessing Officer, therefore, came to the conclusion that there is a forgery committed in the said case either by the assessee or M/s. New Planet Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. or both. 8. The Assessing Officer also noted that he made a generic search on Internet about the background of two entities i.e. M/s. New Planet Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Aanchal Properties Pvt. Ltd. and an interesting fact came out that both those companies were tainted entities and they were debarred by SEBI from trading in share market vide Circular No. NSE/INV/2009/341 dt. 27-08-2009 as they were involved in some scam. In the opinion of the Assessing Officer the character of those two entities was doubtful and hence, there was a big question mark on the genuineness of assessee's transaction with those two entities. The Assessing Officer also noted that those two entities M/s. New Planet Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Aanchal Properties Pvt. Ltd. are interrelated, and both were jointly involved in scam. 9. The Assessing Officer issued the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 31-03-2008. The assessee stated that the assessee claimed Rs. 3,40,72,250/- as deduction in the A.Y. 2008-09 and Rs. 2,58,96,750/- in the A.Y. 2009-10 as only 43.67 acres was the part of the land sold to M/s. Helious Constructions Pvt. Ltd. in the A.Y. 2008-09. 11. In the respect of M/s. New Planet Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. the assessee stated that the said company entered into an MOU with the farmers on 15-01-2007. The assessee also filed the copy of the MOU before the Ld. CIT(A). It was claimed by the assessee that the assessee entered into MOU with the said company on 01-06-2007 for the land area of 84.2 acres. As per the terms of the MOU total compensation payable to M/s. New Planet @ Rs. 5,50,000/- per acre was worked out Rs. 4,63,23,750/-. As 84.20 acres of land was the part of the land sold to M/s. Helious Constructions Pvt. Ltd. in A.Y. 2008-09, the entire cost was claimed as an expenditure. In respect of copy of agreement/MOU obtained by the Assessing Officer from the Assessing Officer in Mumbai who was involved in completing the assessment of M/s. New Planet, the assessee stated that she has purchased two stamp papers as two copies of the MOUs were required to be prepared....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the amount in figures and words, per acre is missing and manual corrections have been carried out in while mentioning the amount in words. Rs.4,40,000/- (Rs. Four lakhs forty thousand Rs.2,10,665/- (Rs. Two lakhs ten thousand six hundred sixty five) Page No. 4, Clause 2(a) Word 'only' is missing and word on is missing. Company Rubber stamp is no affixed Company Rubber stamp is affixed. Page Nos.1,3,4,5,6 & 7 Affixing the rubber stamp is an after thought 12. The assessee also stated before the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee is not related to either M/s. New Planet Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Aanchal Properties Pvt. Ltd. in any manner and the assessee also filed information in respect of the list of shareholder and the Directors of both the companies as per the annual return available on the Website of ROC. It was also stated by the assessee that both the companies are the third parties and this is not disputed by the Assessing Officer also. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee in respect of the genuineness of the payments at entirety to M/s. Aanchal Properties Pvt. Ltd. i.e. Rs. 3,40,72,250/- and he deleted the add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve started bargaining; more and more. Besides this she was responsible for giving a clear land for which necessary steps were required to be taken while protecting her own business interest. It was also submitted that there is no statutory requirement to incorporate the name of all stake holders as consenting parties in the final deed. There is some truth in the contention of the appellant that by exposing the big corporate client she could have invited more and more bargaining. It is a common knowledge that in big transactions of land, the name of end user/ultimate buyer is not revealed till the last moment or till the deed is signed in order to avoid last minute bargaining or even hike in prices which could be offered by the competitors. This peculiar characteristic of the land dealing makes the business of aggregation of land dealing quite secretive. The mention of these two parties in the final sale deed as consenting parties could have brought more transparency in the transaction but not mentioning of the same, in itself cannot be the basis of disallowance as long as other direct and circumstantial evidences support the case of the appellant. 17. As far as forging of the ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... these parties, I do not find any nexus between the two issues. 19. The Assessing Officer has also held that the appellant could not produce original MOD between farmers and the two parties during the course of assessment proceedings. In this regard one must appreciate that the appellant was not a signatory between the farmers & the two companies and therefore, the original could have been produced only after obtaining the same either from the farmers or from the two parties. 20. To sum up it is seen that the fact that both the parties were not a consenting parties in the final deed signed between the farmers and the end user i.e. M/s. Helios Constructions Pvt. Ltd alone cannot be decisive factor m deciding the issue as long as other evidences support the claim of the appellant in this regard, in this case, it is seen that the claim of the appellant in respect of cost of rights in land is supported by payments through Bank. In respect of payment of Rs. 3,40,72,250/- to M/s. Aancha properties Pvt. Ltd., the disallowance has been made by the Assessing Officer primarily for the reason that it is an afterthought and the company was also banned by SEBI along with M/s. New Planet T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 09.01.2007 66 TO 77 14 Copy of Letter from Aanchal Properties Pvt. Ltd for Additional Cost of Right dated 31.3.2008 78 15 Copy of Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU ) Between New Planet & Farmers Dated 15.01.2007 79 TO 89 16 Memorandum of Understandings ( MOU ) Between Nirupa Kanitkar & New Planet Trading Co Pvt. Ltd. Dated 03.06.2007 forwarded by ACIT-V(2),Mumbai 90 TO 96 17 Chart giving details of Area Reconciliation of Aanchal Properties Pvt. Ltd, New Planet Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd & Ostawal Trading Co Pvt. Ltd For A.Y 2008-09, 2009- 10 & 2010-11 97 TO 99 18 Copy of Ledger Abstract of Aanchal Properties Pvt. Ltd, New Planet Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd & Ostawal Trading Co Pvt. Ltd in the Books of Nirupa Kanitkar along with Bank Statement of Nirupa Kanitkar & RTGS Confirmation from Bank 100 TO 120 19 Copy of Confirmation from Ostwal Trading India Co. Pvt. Ltd ( Casper Enterprises Pvt. Ltd ) as on 31.03.2011 121 20 Copy of Bank statement of Ostawal Trading India Pvt. Ltd 122 TO 123 21 Copy of Bank statement of Aanchal Properties Pvt. Ltd 124 TO 125 22 Copy of Bank statement of New Planet Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion Payment 235 To 236 44 Details of Commission payments disallowed by A.O. alongwith supporting ledger extracts, vouchers and other evidences 237 To 326 45 Copy of Letter dt. 19.03 .20 12 to CIT Appeal 327 To 328 46 Copy of Letter dt.08.06.2012 to CIT Appeal 329 47 Letter dt.09.06.2012 to CIT Appeal against the order of the AO for A.Y.-2008-09 330 48 Copy of Acknowledgement of return , Computation of Income, Audited Financial Statements for A.Y-2008-09 331 To 341 49 Copy of Acknowledgement of revised return , Computation of Income, Audited Financial Statements for A.Y-2009-10 342 To 347 50 Comprehensive Submission Letter of A.Y. 2008-09 & A.Y. 2009- 10 348 To 365 14. The main plank of the argument of the Ld. Counsel is that there is no reason why the assessee should do the forgery in the case of M/s. New Planet Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. when admittedly the entire payment is rooted through the banking channel i.e. RTGS mechanism. The Ld. Counsel submits that the big builders and corporate groups require big chunk of land in one stretch comprising 100 acres or more for their real estate project or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0/- per acre. One of the companies M/s. Aanchal Properties Pvt. Ltd. demanded some more compensation and in order to ensure their co-operation, the assessee was required to pay Rs. 1,00,51,000/- to said party as additional compensation. 15. He submits that all the confirmation in respect of the payment made to M/s. Aanchal Properties and M/s. New Planet are already placed before the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A). He submits that the Assessing Officer made the inquiry with the Assessing Officer in Mumbai who was the Assessing Officer of M/s. New Planet and called copy of the MOU beyond that the Assessing Officer has not done any independent investigation nor he took any pain to find out whether all the payments made by the assessee which were rooted through the banking channel were declared by the said company or not. He submits that there is no basis for the charge of forgery made by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Ld. CIT(A) for reason that the Directors of M/s. New Planet have not been examined nor the copy of the alleged agreement dated 03-06-2007 called from the Assessing Officer, Mumbai from the assessment record of M/s. New Planet was test checked. Ld. Counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in stated that he has visited the property along with his consultant Mr. Chokhani and he can locate the property. 16. The Assessing Officer also asked Mr. Jain whether the land in question falls on left or right side of Pune-Mumbai Expressway if one goes from Pune towards Mumbai. Mr. Jain answered the question by stating that the land in question of falls on the right side while going from Pune to Mumbai. He submits that the identity of location of property was also made by the Director of M/s. Aanchal Properties. Mr. Jain also narrated how much amount he has paid to the representatives of the farmers in answer to Q. No. 11 etc. Then how the Assessing Officer can take the doubt on the genuineness of the payment. He submits that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the payment made to M/s. Aanchal Properties. In respect of M/s. New Planet Ld. Counsel submits that the Assessing Officer should have found out truth by calling the assessment record of the said company and examining the Directors. Nothing is there on record except the certain inferences on the basis of presumption to support the case of the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) that the assessee was anywhere involved in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the aggregation of land. As per the modus operandi of the assessee, she hunts big chunk of land to sale the same to the big builders or corporate groups. Accordingly, she identified the land in Navlakumbhare and entered into MOU with the representatives of the farmers as well as land owners. The assessee has filed the copies of MOU (Page No. 7 to 13 of the Compilation) which is Marathi and English translation is at Page Nos. 14 to 15 of the Compilation. It is seen that as per the said agreement/MOU the assessee agreed to pay the compensation of Rs. 25,25,000/- per acre if the farmers or their representatives agreed to consolidate and make available the land to the extent of 110 acres and Rs. 25,50,000/- per acre if it is more than 111 acres. On perusal of the said agreement it is seen that the total land area was contemplated to extend of 180 acres. In Clause-8 of the said MOU, it is mentioned that some of the farmers have entered into agreement with the companies in the Mumbai and it is a responsibility of the assessee to clear their monetary commitments. In the said agreement survey number wise names are written and it is signed by the farmers or put their thumb impression. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Properties Pvt. Ltd. and allow the entire laim. In respect of M/s. New Planet Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., he concurred with the Assessing Officer that there was a tampering and the assessee has shown more amount paid to the M/s. New Planet Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. than actual paid. He, therefore, sustained the addition by accepting the figure of Rs. 3,20,665/- per acre as mentioned in the copy obtained from the Assessing Officer, Mumbai. 19. In this background of facts, we find that in the original agreement with the farmers though, may not be in the specific terms, the names of those two companies are mentioned but there is a reference in Clause-8 that the farmers had entered into agreement in Mumbai in respect of the lands for which the assessee was engaged into negotiation for acquiring those lands. We also find that the Assessing Officer has not raised any dispute on the final sale deed between M/s. Helios Constructions and farmers in which the assessee is impleaded as consenting party. The only doubt raised by the Assessing Officer is in respect of claim of compensation paid to M/s. New Planet Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Aanchal Properties Pvt. Ltd. The law is well settled that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w Planet Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Aanchal Properties Pvt. Ltd. was conducted by the Assessing Officer. In the light of our above discussion, we are of the opinion that the inference drawn by the Assessing Officer in respect of M/s. New Planet Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. as well as M/s. Aanchal Properties Pvt. Ltd. in respect of the amount of compensation paid by the assessee for acquiring their rights in the process of aggregation of land in Navlakhumbre is erroneous. 20.2 We, accordingly, hold that in the case of M/s. Aanchal Properties Pvt. Ltd. the amount of compensation paid by the assessee to the said company is allowable expenditure in respect of M/s. New Planet Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., we hold that so far as both the authorities below have not at all referred the documents to any expert for finding out whether any tampering is done by the assessee or M/s. New Planet Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., entire inference and conclusion is based on only presumption and hence the same is erroneous. We also find that in the case of M/s. New Planet Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the payment as a genuine to the extent of amount of compensation per acre mentioned in the copy o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee, submitted to the A.O. at the time of assessment proceedings along with the reasons, circumstances, name of the parties and amount to be paid to them respectively. In fact the assessee entered into MOU for sale of land, to M/s. Amtut Runwal Multi Housing Pvt. Ltd. For peculiar 'reasons the deal could not be concluded and hence the assessee could not complete the deal with the farmers as per the dead line given in MOU with them. This MOU is on record of the assessing officer. As the assessee follows mercantile system of accounting and in order to follow matching principle, the assessee provided the crystallized liability in the books of accounts. It is worth mentioning that this is not an ad hoc provision and a list of farmer wise provision was produced to the A.O. The A.O. has disregarded the same and held the crystallized liability to be a contingent one and hence disallowed the same. According to the assessee it is a crystallized liability and she is in the process of disposing the same. 26. Thus, from the above it is seen that the appellant's submission in this regard have not been considered by the Assessing Officer. As per Memorandum of Understanding betwe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n case the final transaction is not completed then the farmers had right to ask for the higher compensation. As per the mutual agreed terms, the amount of additional compensation would not be in excess of Rs. 2 Lakhs per acre. He submits that the assessee could not complete the final sale deed of the land within the stipulated period of 30 days and hence, the assessee made the provisions of additional compensation payable to the farmers. He submits that initially on 19-10-2007, the assessee entered into a sale transaction of these lands with M/s. Amrut Runwal as per which M/s. Amrut Runwal paid Rs. 39,17,841/- to the assessee which is shown as a gross income by the assessee in the return for A.Y. 2008-09. Subsequently, the transaction with M/s. Amrut Runwal could not be materialized and the assessee could not complete the deal with the farmers in time. There was a delay in execution of final sale deed and it cannot be said that the provisions made as per agreed terms is in nature of contingent liability. He submits that the assessee had actually paid additional compensation of Rs. 43,90,000/- to the various farmers and the balance amount is payable to them is outstanding. He also r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee is excessive. The assessee should file the required details and documents before the Assessing Officer. We make it clear that for deciding the issue of reasonableness of Rs. 90 Lakhs sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), we are remitting the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer and he should not travel beyond the said issue for adjudication. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 is allowed for the statistical purpose. The Revenue has not taken any ground on the relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A). 24. Now, we take up the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue for the A.Y. 2009-10. The assessee has taken the following effective grounds in the A.Y. 2009-10: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 33.32 lakhs out of the additional consideration of Rs. 66.64 lakhs payable to the farmers for the lands acquired from them and claimed as a deduction in this year. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing the land development expenses of Rs. 20,00,056/- out of Rs. 22,00,056/-. 25. The Revenue has taken the following ground in the appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holdin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kar? Ans. I had some rights on land admeasuring about 100 acres located at Navlakumbhare. My property consultant Mr. Chokhani knows as to how Mrs. Nirupa Suhas Kanitkar came to him and with what connection. Q.6 Do you personally know the location of the properties at Navlakumbhare in respect of which you had some rights which were later surrendered to Mrs. Nirupa Suhas Kanitkar? Please some details of the locations? Ans. I have visited the location alongwith my property consultant Mr. Chokhani and I can locate the property. Q. 7 Please state whether the land in question falls on left or right side of Pune-Mumbai Expressway if one goes from Pune towards Mumbai? Ans. As far as I remember, the land falls on the right side while going from Pune to Mumbai. Q.8 Can you give the distance of the said land from expressway if measured straight? Ans. I do not have any idea about that Q. 9 Do you know the nature of land in respect of which you had acquired the right and later sold to Mrs. Nirupa Suhas Kanitkar ? Ans. It is totally agricultural land without any hilly or forested area. Q.10 How much fees you have paid to your property consultant Mr. Chokhani during ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve you got any evidence in respect of the agreement entered by your company with the farmers? Ans. I am submitting you a photo copy of MOU. Q.24 Where is the original of this MOU at present? Ans. The original lies with Mrs. Nirupa Suhas Kanitkar. Q.25 Can you give the working of capital gain of Rs. 39,14,077/- and Rs. 8,97,263/- as has been submitted by you In your Profit & Loss Account for the year ending 31.03.2008 and 31.03.2009 respectively? Ans. It is not possible for me to submit the detailed working at present. I shall submit the within 2 days. Q.26 What is the amount remained to be received by your company from Mrs. Nirupa Suhas Kanitkar as on 31.03.2009 and as on today? Ans. As on date nothing remains to be received from Mrs. Nirupa Suhas Kanitkar. However, an amount of Rs. 74,69,000/- remained to be received from Mrs. Nirupa Suhas Kanitkar . I am submitting copies of ledger extracts ,bank statements for the same. Q.27 Have to anything to say which you consider relevant? Ans. No." 28. The Assessing Officer has observed that as per the statement of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, Director of M/s. Aanchal Properties Pvt. Ltd. it is evident that all the th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ought into ^H picture in orchestrated manner by the appellant in order to ^H reduce taxable income. (iii) Both the entities i.e. M/s. Ostwal Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. as well as M/s. Aanchal Properties Pvt. Ltd. were alleged to have created rights in the respective lands by paying a token amount of Cash amounting to Rs. 5,51,000/- to farmers on adhoc basis as it was not clear how and when the amount was distributed among the farmers. Further M/s. Aanchal Properties Pvt. Ltd was a tainted entitiy as SEBI had banned this company from Trading. (iv) The appellant could only produce photo copy of agreements entered into by the above named parties with farmers and original document could not be produced despite the same being called for. 10. As far as the names of the above two parties i.e. M/s. Aanchal Properties Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Ostwal Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, the appellant's submission is that it is not necessary to incorporate the name of all the stake holders in the final agreement. The appellant submitted that she was negotiating the deal with a big corporate entity of Mumbai and she was not willing to expose the name of the party to all the stake holders as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turned un served for which the appellant stated that this happened due to change of address and the fact that one of the directors of M/s Aanchal Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd could be produced before the A.O proves that the parties are genuine. It is also seen that the payments to these parties have been made by cheque and it is not a case where the money has come back to the appellant in some way or other. In respect of payment of Rs. 2,58,96,750/- to M/s. Aanchal Properties Pvt. Ltd., the disallowance has been made by the Assessing Officer primarily for the reason that it is an afterthought and the company was also banned by SEBI along with M/s. New Planet Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd which were interrelated parties. I find that the addition of Rs. 3,40,72,250/- made in A.Y. 2007-08 in similar situation was deleted. Since the facts of the case are similar the A.O is directed to delete the 'addition of Rs. 2,58,96,750/-pertaining to M/s Aanchal Properties Pvt. Ltd. made in this Assessment year. As regards the disallowance of Rs. 2,08,86,250/- in respect of cost of rights acquired from M/s Ostwal Trading company Pvt. Ltd. is concerned it is seen that the facts are identical. Therefore, it is h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ails in respect of M/s. New Planet Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. from the Assessing Officer, Mumbai. He argues that entire payment to M/s. Otswal Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. is rooted through the bank account and there is no cash payments. He referred to assessment order and submits that the Assessing Officer has only raised the doubt on the genuineness of payment but doubt is not sufficient to make the disallowance. 30.1 We find force in the argument of the Ld. Counsel. We find that the said company entered into agreement with the farmers (copy placed in the Compilation in Marathi). We also find entire payment is rooted through the banking channel. The Assessing Officer himself admitted in the assessment order all three companies are independent companies and the assessee is not at all related to any of the companies. The only reason given by the Assessing Officer for making the disallowance in respect of compensation paid to the said company, it is not impleaded as a party in the final sale deed. We have already noted in the A.Y. 2008- 09 that unless there is a variation in the Revenue's record then only for protecting the interest of the buyer, the entity which names in the revenue records....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he decision of Ld. CIT(A) holding that the 50% of the provision can be treated as a reasonable one. In this year the facts are identical, we, therefore, consider it fit to restore this issue for fresh consideration of the disallowance of 50% of the provision towards expected additional cost payable to the farmers. We remit the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer following our directions in the A.Y. 2008-09. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 is allowed for the statistical purpose. 33. The next issue is in the appeal the land development expenses of Rs. 22,00,056/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 20,00,056/- and Ld. CIT(A) confirmed said disallowance. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. 34. We have heard the parties and perused the record. The Ld. AR submits that the assessee has incurred land development expenses of Rs. 22,00,056/- for local area development such as road, culverts etc. in and around Navalkhumre, Tal.-Maval, Distt.-Pune. He submits that there was a demand of the villagers that as the said village was lacking in basic infrastructure like road, culverts etc. and as per the demand of the villagers, the assessee incurred the expenditure for maintaini....