TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 876
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....CIT(A) erred in holding that the sources of the investment made by the assessee towards purchase of four residential flats are fully substantiated. 1(b). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,37,71,100/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68/69C without appreciating that the assessee had filed to establish the genuineness of the loans taken from three parties and also the creditworthiness of the three parties to advance the loan to the assessee company. 2. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and the order of the AO be restored. 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add any other grounds which may be necessary." 3. The assessee filed its return of income in which business was declared to be of Builders but later during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed letter stating that the assessee is engaged in the business of Investment in Residential and Commercial properties. The assessee had shown stock-in-progress of Rs. 1,37,71,100/- in the return of income filed with Revenue. The said stock-in-progress was shown in Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g asked by the AO about sources of making investment in these flats, the assessee submitted that the assessee had obtained loan of Rs. 1,40,74,000/- from Directors and shareholders. The assessee submitted that assessee has due to oversight shown the flats wrongly as closing work-in-progress and also the assessee submitted that it showed loans of Rs. 1,40,74,000/- as sundry creditors wrongly which were corrected in the revised statement of accounts. The assessee filed recasted Balance Sheet as at 31-3-2011 and 31-3-2012. Notices u/s. 133(6) were issued by AO to Gurunanak Developers India P. Ltd., which was returned by the postal authority with the remarks „left‟. On being asked by the AO, the assessee submitted that the builder Gurunanak Developers India Private Limited is absconding. The AO observed from the details of unsecured loans submitted by the assessee that the assessee has raised loans from the following persons: Total 1,37,71,100/- i) Jayesh Hirlal Gothi Rs. 12,00,000/- ii) Ramesh H. Patel (One of the Director) Rs. 72,74,000/- iii) Dinesh K. Patel (One of the Director) Rs. 56,00,000/- Rs. 1,40,74,000/- The A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....680 with UCO Bank to Aashta Developers & Investment. This payment is made towards reimbursement of expenses incurred by Aashta Developer & Investment Prop, Dilip S. Kasat who is assessed to tax under PAN : AACPK7896C. Assessee has no business transaction with Astha Developers & Investment. 3. In reply to copy of return of income and Balance Sheet of Golden Homes Pvt. Ltd. assessee's sister concern, the assessee replied stating that " in the letter bearing No. 394/2012 dated 15/10/2012, at Sr. No, 4, the details of sister concern through oversight are typed as Golden Home Pvt. Ltd. instead of the correct name of Real Gold Home Mart. Pvt. Ltd. The assessee was asked by AO to produce the parties concerned but the assessee failed to produce the parties and also in the opinion of the AO the assessee also could not reconcile the difference between the market value of the property of Rs. 1,26,02,500/- adopted by Sub-Registrar and registered value of property of each flat of Rs. 28,00,000/-. The AO held that the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness of transaction and identity w.r.t. four flats purchased by the assessee and the AO treated the entire amount of Rs. 1,3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nuineness of the loans taken from three parties and also the creditworthiness of the three parties to advance the loan to the assessee company. 2. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and the order of the AO be restored. 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add any other grounds which may be necessary. A copy of CIT(A)'s order was received by me on 04.01.2016. Last date for filing appeal is 03.03.2016. However, appeal should be filed immediately. Seal of the department Sd/- (SUMANT SINHA) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai. To:- ITO-5(1)(1), Mumbai: If there is any change in the jurisdiction over this case it should be brought to the notice of this office immediately. The copy of the acknowledgement of filing appeal indicating the appeal number and date of filing the appeal should be submitted to this office immediately after filing the appeal. Copy to:- 1. The CIT(A)-10, Mumbai. 2. The Addl. CIT, Range-5(l), Mumbai. 3. The C.R.O. O/o. C.I.T.(DR), ITAT Admn. Mumbai. (MAHADEVAN A. M.K.) DCIT(Judicial) to Pr.CIT- 5, Mumbai." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s. 133(6) and the Sub-Registrar in reply stated that these were flats were registered in favour of the assessee on 01.01.2010 but later the registration was cancelled because there was under payment of stamp duty wherein the actual stamp duty work out to Rs. 6,13,075/- per flat instead of Rs. 30,700/- per flat as was paid by the assessee. This worked out to the market value of each flat to be Rs. 1,26,02,500/- per flat but the same was sought to be registered at the value of Rs. 28,00,000/- per flat. Later, the flats were registered in favour of the assessee by Sub-Registrar at value of Rs. 28,00,000/- per flat and full stamp duty was paid by the assessee as per circle rate on valuation of Rs. 1,26,02,500/- per flat. The assessee could not explain this difference in the purchase price per flat of Rs. 28,00,000/- and the market value as per stamp duty rate of Rs. 1,26,02,500/- per flat. The AO wanted to make enquires with the builder Gurunanak Developers India P. Ltd., but the notices u/s. 133(6) issued to Builder returned un-served. The builder could not be traced despite inspector being deputed by learned AO. The assessee furnished additional evidences during appellate proceedin....