TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1483
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deration in respect of flat sold by the assessee at a lower rate that the other flats in the same building even after the assessee failed to justify before the Assessing Officer as to why the aforesaid flats were sold at a lower price? 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) should have upheld the addition of Rs. 4,16,70,874/- towards suppressed sale consideration when the Hon'ble ITAT vide order dated 15.06.2011 in ITA No.55378/Mum/2009 in the case of ITO 19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diamond Investment & Properties (A.Y.2005-06) had upheld similar addition of suppressed sale consideration under similar facts and circumstances which was upheld by Hon'ble Bombay High Court order dated 20.03.2014 in ITA No.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... two units being 4th and 5th floor, have been sold to Overseas Infrastructure India Alliance Pvt. Ltd. vide deed of registration dated 18.11.2009 @ 2,38,576.17/- per sq. mtr. The date of first payment in this case was 13.07.2009. Assessing Officer called for reasons for variation in the sale rate per sq. mtr. in respect of above units and after considering the assessee's explanation, concluded that assessee has claimed that market value, as assessed by the stamp duty registering authority in the case of unit no. 302 was Rs. 1,44,58,500/-, as against agreement price of Rs. 1.51 crore, which is higher than the market value assessed by the stamp duty registering authority, whereas, Assessing Officer observed that the issue at hand was that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usion that in respect of unit no. 302, Mr. Paresh P. Shah was asked to submit details of transaction with assessee and from the said details submitted by him, it was found that first payment in case of unit no. 302 was made on 04.10.2009 and the entire payment was made on 24.11.2009 and in case of M/s. JMD Auto India Pvt. Ltd. to whom premises no. 101, has been sold, first payment came on 19.08.2009 and the entire payment was made on 04.11.2009. He, therefore, held that two transactions are comparable, in view case of almost identical timing and since assessee could not provide plausible reason for such vide variation in rates, he applied the rate at which first floor (premises no. 101), has been sold, for the purpose of determining the act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e variation in rates for sale of unit nos. 301, 302 and 4th & 5th floor, vis-à-vis sale rate of unit no.101. As discussed earlier, besides unit no.302, the date of agreement for unit no.301 and 4th & 5th floor was also falling in F.Y.200910 relevant to A.Y. 2010-11. Assessing Officer observed that as is a prevalent practice in real-estate dealings, underhand transactions of on money in this case cannot be denied, especially when the prevalent market rates in the same building were more than three times higher than the rate at which premises no. 302 was shown to be sold by assessee. However, Assessing Officer has not brought any evidence on record to show as to how the explanation of assessee that there is locational disadvantages in ....