TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1581
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as under: "2.1 The facts of the issue as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:- 3.1.3 I have duly considered assessee's submission and carefully gone through penalty order passed by the AO. I have also perused the facts of the case. On perusal of submission made and assessment order passed by the AO, following things have been noticed. (i) No incriminating document whatsoever indicating cash received from "Guru Pragya"on account of Land transaction. Whatever amount received from "Guru Pragya" was found recorded in the books found during the course of search. Accordingly, there is no allegation of receipt of on money by the assessee found during the search operation. Cost of land was duly disclosed in the regular books of accounts found by search party. (ii) Cheques as consideration received from Guru Pragya shown in the regular books of accounts. (iii) Seized document identified as AS-1 pg 4 is placed at page 7 of the paper book. Notings/Transactions recorded are therein which is mentioned at page 22 of ld. CIT(A)'s order. This seized document shows total receipt of Rs. 6.01 Cr. upto 15th Sep 2010. Assessee has submitted a ledger account (PB Pg 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prudent business man to protect his/her interest. It is also a fact that assessee has given possession to Guru Pragya for construction only, not for sale of land as it is. AR has also submitted before the AO and appellate proceeding that even the sale deed with allotee/flat owner will be jointly executed by the developer and the land owner i.e., the assessee. All these prove the contention of the assessee with regard to JV / Development agreement with Guru Pragya are bonafide. (iv) It is also a fact that issue of 80 IB claim in case of Guru Pragya in AY 2010-11 has been allowed by CIT(Appeals)-1 Jaipur vide order dated 24/02/2015 (ITA No.25/13-14). (v) AO has referred the statement of Sh. Ashok Agrawal at pg 23 to 24 in the impugned penalty order. On plain reading of the sworn statement recorded on oath of Sh. Ashok Agrawal, it is seen that Sh. Ashok Agrawal has admitted undisclosed sale on the ground that the amount received from developer has shown advance in books of accounts and sale has not been recorded in the books found at the time of search. In this regard, AR explained that the assessee is following percentage completion method, therefore, sale could be recroded on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing total income at Rs. 7,11,74,000/-/- on 27- 09-2011 u/s 139(1) (Copy at PB Page 8-12). In original return filed u/s 139(1), she claimed deduction of Rs. 4,58,25,167/- u/s 80IB(10) against the joint venture housing project with Guru Pragya Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. In support of this claim, the assessee filed Certificate of CA in Form No 10CCB (Copy at PB Page 36-42). However, when it came to the knowledge of the assessee that the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) would attract the prolonged litigation with department, she choose the path of peace and in order to avoid the litigation, she withdrew the claim of deduction u/s 80IB by filing revised return u/s 139(5) of Income Tax Act within the time allowed by the law. The Revised return of income was filed on 26-03-2013 declaring total income at Rs. 11,69,99,170/- (Copy at PB Page 43-47) and due taxes were paid thereon along with the revised return. The basic dispute is over a housing project in joint venture with M/s Guru Pragya Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. The issue is whether the transaction is a joint venture housing project or pure sale of the land in the hands of assessee. During the course of search a document Page 4 Exhibit 1 of An....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn of income, the assessee showed profit of Rs. 4,58,25,167/- of AY 2011-12 and profit of Rs. 3,72,01,442/- of AY 2012-13 from this transaction and also claimed deduction u/s 80IB. The assessee vide letter dated 23.01.2013 (Copy at PB Page 119-125A) clarified that the transaction has been treated in books as under:- (i) A.Y. 2011-12: On the basis of percentage completion method of accounting followed for the purpose of joint venture, a sum of Rs. 4,72,96,492/- on a/c of sale and interest of Rs. 67,55,287/- was credited. Cost of land was taken at Rs. 14,71,325/- and thus a profit of Rs. 4,58,25,167/- was declared from joint venture. (ii) In A.Y. 2012-13, the sale booked as per percentage completion method was Rs. 3,83,95,882/- and after considering the cost of land of Rs. 11,94,440/-, a profit of Rs. 3,72,01,442/- was shown. In original return filed u/s 139(1) the deduction u/s 80IB(10) was claimed (Copy at PB Page 8- 12), which was withdrawn by filing revised return u/s 139 (5) of Income Tax Act (Copy at PB Page 43-47) within the stipulated time. The due tax together with interest in respect of such income has been paid. In the assessment proceedings the AO held that the t....