TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 375
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner had filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 1,15,560/-. Pending such return, a survey action was taken against the petitioner under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) on 15.1.2015. During survey, it was found that the petitioner had sold certain flats in one Zain Tower at a price lower than the stamp valuation of such property. The statement of a partner of the petitioner firm was recorded. On the basis of such statement and other material, the Assessing officer passed an order of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act on 28.3.2016 determining the total income of Rs. 76.75 Lakhs (rounded off). 3.2 To reopen such assessment, the Assessing Officer issued impugned notice on 28.3.2018. In order to do ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he year under consideration works out to Rs. 4,46,81,000/-as per Market Value (Stamp Duty Value) mentioned in the AIR/CIB information. The assessee has shown income towards sale of flats at Rs. 3,03,70.0007- and offered profit of Rs. 59,497/- in the return and further declared an amount of Rs. 76,75,000/- towards under vałuation of flats during the survey action. Thus, an amount of Rs. 66,36,000/- (44681000 - 30370000 - 7675000) escaped assessment. It was further seen that during the FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13, assessee constructed 33 flats, out of which it sold 18, and was left with a closing stock of 15, whose value was Rs. 2,61,93,081/-. During the FY 2012-13 relevant to the AY 2013- 14, the assessee constructed one more fla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6,000/- towards under valuation of flats. Assessee has shown one unsold flat instead of three and shown value of closing stock at Rs. 9,08,114/- instead of Rs. 57,88,950/-, and therefore, an amount of Rs. 48,80,836/-, also escaped assessment. Hence, the assessee has failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts for determination of total income. Basis of forming reason to believe and details of escapement of income: In the light of above facts and detailed findings, I have reason to believe that Rs. 1,15,16,836/-, has escaped assessment within the meaning assigned in the provision of section 147 of the Act, since, the assessee clearly failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts for determination of income, hence, it is a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s found that the assessee had sold the flats at a price less than the market value which fact the partner of the assessee firm had accepted in his statement and declared the amount of Rs. 76.75 Lakhs by way of additional income. Subsequently, however, the Assessing Officer noticed that as per the stamp duty valuation, the total consideration of the sold flats came to Rs. 4.46 Crores (rounded off) as against the total sale value of 3.03 crores (rounded off). Thus, the assessee had disclosed a sum of Rs. 66.36 Lakhs short in the process. The second ground for reopening the assessment was that there was a discrepancy of three units of unsold flats, the valuation of which had to be added to the closing stock. 6. In so far as the second ground ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the sale price of a capital asset. For obvious reasons, this provision would not apply in case of a builder for whom such immovable property is in nature of stock in trade and not capital asset. To overcome this difficulty, the legislature had inserted Section 43CA under Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 1.4.2014. This provision would enable the Revenue to tax the income arising out of sale of stock by a deeming fiction where subject to certain conditions, stamp valuation of such stock would substitute the actual receipt thereof. In absence of any such statutory provisions, giving rise to the deeming fiction, the Revenue cannot tax any amount which has not been received by a seller of an immovable property at the time of sale. 9. With this bac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....void litigation, he offered an amount of Rs. 76.75 Lakhs for the assessment year 2013-14 to tax towards "undervaluation of flats as compared to Market Value (Stamp Duty Value)." 10. In plain terms, in this statement, the partner never admitted that the flats were sold at a price higher than what was reflected in the document. In other words, he did not admit to any cash payment not recorded in the documents. He was asked about the difference between the stamp valuation for the purpose of registration and the price at which the flats were sold. He admitted the different. He offered to tax the said amount of Rs. 76.75 Lakhs being the difference between the stamp duty valuation and the sale price. We are prepared to proceed on the basis that ....