TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 507
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....." GROUND NO.1 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows. During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee company is one of the group company of BPTP group. The assessee had purchased several tract of land in the NCR (National Capital Region). The assessee company has made only part payment of sale consideration to the seller at the time of executing sale deed and balance payment is made by way of post dated cheques (PDCs). During the assessment, the A.O. obtained details of such PDCs given at the time of registration to the seller and date of encashment. The A.O. applied rate of 15% interest per annum paid for the period from sale deed to date of encashment, on the amount of PDCs on the basis of seized material. The A.O. gave the findings in the assessment order that total such interest payable comes to Rs. 40,22,546/- on PDCs and such interest is paid in cash outside of books of account. Therefore, such interest is added as unaccounted/unexplained expenses. 5. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The CIT(A) after examining the seized papers/documents directed to recomputed the interest on PDCs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... His direction is based on material found and seized at the time of search. In view of the above, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of ld.CIT(A) in this regard and accordingly, we reject ground no.1 of the revenue's appeal." 8. In view of the Co-Ordinate Bench order of the Tribunal in the group concern of the assessee in the case of M/s IAG Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we hold that the CIT(A)'s order is correct and no interference is called for. It is ordered accordingly. GROUND NO.2 9. The AO had made a disallowance of Rs. 60,76,555/- being additional payment made for the purchase of land. The assessee company purchased the land from farmer and land owner and transferred the same to one of flagship company of BPTP Group, namely, M/s. Country Wide Promoters (P) Ltd. (CWPPL) under collaboration agreement for development and received Rs. 35,000/- per acre from CWPPL which was over and above the cost of land. In para 3.1 of the assessment order, it is mentioned that BPTP Group had made more than Rs. 45.02 crores to the vendors of land which was over and above the sale consideration and these payments had been made much after the execu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssions and perused the material available on record. The case law relied upon by the parties has been taken into consideration. On a consideration of the same we are of the view that since in the facts of the present case the material issue is that the said expenditure was never claimed as assessee's business expenditure the occasion to make a disallowance of the same does not arise. On this fact there is no dispute as admittedly the expenditure was not claimed as an expense by the assessee and consequently has not been routed through its P&L A/c. In the circumstances, the occasion to make an addition of the same by way of a disallowance in these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case does not arise. The reasoning and finding given while considering the arguments qua Ground No-4 would fully apply here also. The difference that here the entire amount is added u/s 37 as opposed to part of the expenditure disallowed U/S 40A(3) is not so material as the finding is arrived at taking cognizance of the material fact that herein also no such claim of expenditure has been made. The fact that the additional payments were warranted in order to avoid potential disputes amongst the cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... take up for adjudication the issues groundwise as under. GROUND NOS.3, 3.1 & 3.2 16. The AO had made a disallowance of Rs. 60,76,555/- u/s 37(1) of the Act on account of additional payment for purchase of land. The assessee has challenged before the CIT (A) that the deduction of purchase of land having not being claimed by the assessee, no disallowance could be made. The CIT (A) did not accept this contention, however, he gave certain directions to quantify the disallowance made and while giving effect to the order of the CIT (A), the entire amount of Rs. 60,76,555 added was deleted. The CIT (A) having rejected the assessee's contention that no disallowance is called for since no deduction is claimed, the assessee is in appeal. The ld. DR was duly heard. 17. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The CIT (A) has allowed the entire claim of the assessee and hence, there is no grievance arising for the assessee. Moreover, for our reasoning in para 12 to 14 of this order, these grounds of the assessee's appeal need not be adjudicated. It is ordered accordingly. GROUND NOS.4 & 4.1 18. Brief facts in relation to the above ground are as follows. The ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he receipt and payment to the same extent gets squared up to the extent of cost of land. This accounting treatment cannot over ride the true nature of transaction. It is settle law that the provision of I.T.Act would prevail over the system of accounting. Reliance is placed on Hon'ble S.C. decision in the case of Tuticorin Alkalies Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172." 20. The assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before us. 21. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that the issue in question is covered in favour of the assessee by the orders of the Tribunal in the case of Glitz Builders and Promoters Pvt.Ltd. 1747/Del/2013 dt. 2.1.2015 for the A.Y. 2006-07 and in the case of Westland Developers Pvt.Ltd. in ITA 1752/Del/2013 vide order dt. 22.8.2014 for the A.Y. 2006-07. The Ld.D.R. was unable to controvert the submissions made by the Ld.Authorised Representative. 22. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Tribunal in the group cases of the assessee on identical facts have held that the payment made for acquisition of land was not claimed as a deduction and hence the provisions of S.40A(3) of the A....