TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 170
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment was completed on 31.01.2014 under section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) while passing assessment order made disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) of Rs. 1,04,42,145/- and further made addition under section 68 of the Act of Rs. 1,70,91,811/-. 3. During the assessment, the AO noted that Father of assessee purchased land admeasuring of 4088 sq.mt for housing project on 19.01.2007. Initially sanction plan of development of housing project was granted by local authority on 05.02.1997 and that the project was completed in the year 2010. The AO was of the view that as per the provision of section 80IB(10) any housing project which is approved by Local Authority before 01.04.2004, in order to get the deduction, the construction of housing project should have been completed on or before 31.03.2008. The construction in the case of assessee was completed on 01.10.2010, thus, the assessee has not fulfilled the condition prescribed under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee was issued show cause notice dated 24.10.2014 as to why the deduction under section 80IB(10) should not be disallowed. The assessee filed her reply on 13.01.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see was asked to furnish the details of advances from customers, confirmation with PAN number. The AO noted that the assessee vide her reply dated 07.07.2014 furnished the name of the persons with outstanding amount against their flat number. No PAN number, address or confirmation of the parties were furnished. The AO took his view that in absence of confirmation or address of the respective parties. No further enquiries about the genuineness and credit-worthiness of customers were verified. The AO made addition of Rs. 1,70,91,811/-. 6. On appeal before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee contended that similar disallowance under section 80IB(10) was made by AO in A.Y. 2010-11, however, on appeal before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee was allowed deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act in appeal number CAS-I/174/2013-14 order dated 26.05.2014. The Ld. CIT(A) by following the order of his predecessor allowed the deduction under section 80IB(10). 7. So far as addition under section 68 of the Act is concerned, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 1,23,05,311/- and sustained the addition to the extent of Rs. 47,86,500/-. The ld.CIT(A) while partly deleting the addition under section 68 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Surat ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-1 Surat may be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer's order may be restored." 10. The assessee in its Cross Appeal has raised following grounds of appeal: "(I) Addition of Rs. 47,86,500 u/s.68 of the Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have deleted addition of Rs. 47,86,500. (II) Miscellaneous: The appellant craves leave to add, alter or vary any of the grounds of appeal." 11. We have heard the submission of Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) for the Revenue and Learned Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee and have gone through the orders of authorities below. 12. Ground No.1 and 2 of Revenue's Appeal relates to deleting the disallowance under section 80IB(10) of the Act. The Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that the date of sanction of project from Surat Development Authority as on 05.02.1997 is gathered by the A.O. from the sale deeds of the land where the assessee undertaken the development of project. The sale deed of the land was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rchased by this Hemant I Desai as on 27th March, 2000 which was subsequently purchased by the father of the assessee which in turn came in possession of the assessee. We further noticed from the supporting material that the permission to develop housing project was obtained on 23rd Feb, 2007 which was revised on 17nd September, 2009 and as per the permission the housing project was completed on 31st march, 2010. We find the Ld.CIT(A) has elaborated in his findings and order that the condition of completion of project within prescribed time were fulfilled by assessee in her case. After considering the above facts and detailed order of the Ld.CIT(A) we do not find any reason to interfere in the findings of the Ld.CIT(A)." 15. Considering the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in assessee's case for A.Y. 2010-11 on identical set of facts, on identical grounds of appeal and respectfully following the same, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) wherein the ld.CIT (A) followed the order of his predecessor for A.Y. 2010-11, thus, we affirm the order of Ld. CIT(A). Moreover, the AO has not disputed the fact that the sanction of development of hou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A of Income tax Rules for admitting the additional evidences, which could not be filed before AO. The ld. CIT(A) on receipt of all those evidences remanded the matter to the A.O. for his remand report. The A.O. furnished his remand report and has not specified any discrepancy in the sale deeds except objecting that complete details were not furnished. The Ld. CIT(A) after appreciating evidences deleted the addition to the extent of Rs. 1.23 Crore. The Ld. AR for the assessee prayed for dismissal of the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue. 18. On the addition sustained to the extent of Rs. 47,86,500/- the AR submits that these addition relates to following persons: S.No. Name Amount 1 Anand Vashi 15,95,000 2 Ravishankar Ratanlal Agarwal 5,00,000 3 Sandeep Poonamiya 17,21,500 4 Arivnd Dave 5,00,000 5 Kanti Praful Tayal and Dhirubhai 4,50,000 20,000 Total 47,86,500 19. The AR for the assessee further explained that flat A-801 was transferred to Anand Vashi on sale consideration of Rs. 15,95,000/- vide registered sale dated 08.02.2012, copy of sale with relevant page of English Translation at page is filed, which is available at page No.201A and 201B o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also relied on the decision of Jodhpur Tribunal in Ayushi Builder & developers Vs DCIT[2014] 151 ITD 712 (Jodhpur- Trib] on the ratio that advance received against the sale of property and subsequently adjusted against sale cannot partake the character of undisclosed income. 21. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the orders of the Lower Authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on various case laws relied by ld. AR for the assessee. The AO made addition under section 68 by taking view that assessee not furnished complete details of various investors/booking and that in absence of complete details the deposits were unverifiable and made addition of entire amount. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee stated that the money was received on account of booking of flats. The assessee furnished details of all parties who booked their various units. The assessee also stated that project was undertaken by a lady and she hardly knew anything about accounts and she was solely relied on the Accountant. The accountant of assessee left the assessee and complete papers and details could not be furnished to the AO. The assessee persuaded the account....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 15,95,000/-. Hence, this part of addition is allowed for statistical purpose. 23. The assessee further explained that Shri Sandeep Poonamiya who has paid Rs. 17,21,500/- and sale deed was registered on 03.11.2012. We made also note that AR of the assessee had filed application for considering the additional evidence. In the application for additional evidence the assessee has stated that during the first appellate proceeding the assessee could not lay her hand on the registered sale deed, though bookings deposits were lying at credit in her books of accounts. Copy of registered sale deed dated 03.11.2012 is also placed on record. Perusal of registered sale deed, copy of which is available at page no.341 to 367, the copy of relevant part of English Translation is also filed. No adverse material is brought against the documentary evidence nor was any contrary submission made by the ld. DR for the revenue. Therefore, keeping in view that the sale deed is registered before Government Authorities and has direct relevance with the fact in issue, therefore the additional evidence admitted. Considering the evidence in the form of registered sale deed in favour of Sandeep Poonamiya f....