TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 305
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Delhi for constructing the said property with its funds. As per the said Collaboration Agreement, the basement and ground floor was to be given to Shri Arun Kumar whereas the title of 1st, 2nd and 3rd floor of the property would be with the assessee. It was submitted that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold 1st and 2nd floor of the said property to the following persons for a total consideration of Rs. 46,50,000/- : (i) Shri Jagmohan Singh Rs. 7,50,000/- (ii) Ms. Kailash Wanti Rs. 8,00,000/- (iii) Shri Jaswant Singh Rs. 9,00,000/- (iv) Shri Rajnish Juneja Rs.22,00,000/- The AO asked the assessee to explain as to the difference in rates of the flats, when the properties constructed and sold were of similar description and located at the same placed in the same building, then why there is a wide variation in the rates of sale reported by the assessee. The assessee vide reply dated 18.12.2008 stated that the property sold to Shri Rajnish Juneja for Rs. 22 lakhs due to the reasons that the flat is in front side of the building and on wide road; some alterations were carried out in the flat as per customer's requirement; and the work of fixing I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring fixed on 12.09.2011. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. First appellate authority, who deleted the addition by observing as under:- " I have considered the submission of the appellant, issues discussed in the original assessment order, appeal order passed by my predecessor and directions of the Hon'ble IT A T. The only issue in dispute is regarding addition of Rs. 41,50,000/- as unrecorded profit on sale of flats. The adverse inference was drawn on the ground that in the same complex, appellant had sold flats to different parties at different rates. It was observed by the Assessing Officer that flat sold to Dr. Rajnish Juneja was sold at Rs. 22 lacs and to other parties the flats were sold at Rs. 7,50,000/- to Rs. 9,00,000/- and accordingly Assessing Officer applied the sale price relating to Dr. Rajnish Juneja in the case of sales made to other parties. The submission of the appellant is that the Assessing Officer has not properly appreciated the facts and contents of the sale deed and mechanically applied the sale price relating to Dr. Rajnish Juneja in case of other parties in total disregard to legal documents placed on record. It was submitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce or material in the possession of the Assessing Officer. In fact, the tribunal has also directed the Assessing Officer to verify the fact of additional cost incurred in respect of sale of flat to Dr. Rajnish Juneja. In the light of corroborative evidences placed on record in support of additional cost incurred by the appellant, which is supported by the sale deed made with Dr. Juneja and the letter filed by Dr. Juneja for carrying out extra work. In view of the above there is no basis for estimating extra sale considerations in the case of appellant on presumption and surmises. Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 41,50,000/- is deleted." 5. The revenue, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us. The only ground taken by the revenue is against the deletion of addition of Rs,41,50,000/- 6. Ld. DR submitted that in the first round of appeal, while setting aside the matter to the file of the AO, the Tribunal vide order dated 25.02.2010 had directed the assessee to furnish the statement of account with respect to cost incurred with respect to each flat, however, the assessee did not comply with the said direction and did not furnish any supporting documents/evi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee charged Rs. 13,16,750/- as extra amount in respect of above stated flat for extra work carried out and due to location of flat being in front side of building on wide road and various other fixtures and fittings. He further submitted that all the details of extra charges amounting to Rs. 13,16,750/-were given by the assessee which were reproduced at page 6 of CIT (A)'s order. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the Assessing Officer had not disputed that these modifications were carried out at the specific request of the party and receipt and expenses were duly recorded and accounted for in the books of account of the assessee. The ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer had not brought any evidence to claim that the assessee had received any underhand sale consideration and the fact of sale consideration was in dispute in the case of buyers. He submitted that once it was established that full value of consideration had been disclosed, there was no case for any addition. In this regard, the ld. AR relied on various judicial pronouncements. Accordingly, he pleaded that the ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition. So, he does not want us to interfere in the o....