TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 355
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Tax Act, 1961. The appellant crave, leave or reserves the right to amend modify, alter add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal." 2. There was a search u/s 132 of the Act on 17.12.2014 in the case of Adventage Group, Jaipur. During the search proceedings apart from other documents two agreements were found from the business premises of the assessee concern at 424-425, Ganpati Plaza, MI Road, Jaipur. These agreements were seized and marked as Exhibit-24 of Annexure -A. The AO noted that as per these agreements dated 28.03.2013, two plots situated at 201 and 202 Girnar Colony, Gandhi Path, Jaipur were to be sold by Sh. Kailash Chand Sharma and Smt. Urmila Sharma to Sh. Manpreet Vish....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f section 69B of the Act. The assessee filed its detailed reply before the AO. The AO did not accept the contention of the assessee and made addition of the differential amount of Rs. 4,66,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer took full value consideration by applying the provisions of section 50D of the Act as it was stated in the original agreements dated 28.03.2013 and 06.06.2013. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the earlier agreements were between different parties showing a higher sale consideration cannot be adopted as fair market value of the property in transactions between the assessee and vender. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition made u/s 69B of the Act by the AO. 3. Before us,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of transfer, the assessee has tried to show the purchase consideration at substantial low in comparison to the fair market price of property in question. Due to passage of time the value of the properties to get increased instead of decrees as claimed by the assessee. He has relied upon the orders of the Assessing Officer. 4. On the other hand, ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has made the addition u/s 69B which is not attractive in the facts of the present case when none of the parties in the transaction has admitted any on money paid or received over and above the sale consideration stated in the sale deed. He has further submitted that the Assessing Officer has proceeded on the presumption of market valu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d exhibit as 24 of Annexure -A. These two agreements dated 28.03.2013 show that two plots of land situated at 201 & 202 Girnar Colony, Gandhi Path, Jaipur were to be sold by Sh. Kailash Chand Sharma and Smt. Urmila Sharma to Sh. Manpreet Vishnoi and Ms Sabia Vishnoi for consideration of Rs. 3,82,50,000/- and Rs. 2,97,50,000/- respectively. These agreements were subsequently cancelled by the agreement dated 06.06.2013. The statements of Sh. Kailash Chand Sharma and Smt. Urmila Sharma as well as Sh. Manpreet Vishnoi and Ms Sabia Vishnoi were recorded u/s 131 of the Act. These persons confirmed sale consideration agreed upon between the parties of Rs. 3,82,50,000/- and Rs. 2,97,50,000/- respectively. However, the reasons for cancellation of ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t made by the assessee to the extent of the difference between the fair market price and the consideration admitted being not shown in the books of account can be added to the income of the assessee. The assessing Officer has proceeded on the basis of the sale consideration as stated in the agreements dated 28.03.2013 as well as cancellation agreements dated 06.06.2013. There is no doubt that earlier agreements were between different parties and assessee was not privy to the agreements. Therefore, when the earlier agreement was cancelled then the sale consideration stated in the earlier agreement cannot be adopted as a fair market price/value of the property for the purpose of section 69B of the Act. The Assessing Officer was ought to have ....