AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 627
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ogether on the request of both the parties and are being disposed off by this common order. 3. In the case of M/s N.R. Finance Pvt. Ltd revenue has raised following grounds in the appeal relating to Assessment Years 2012- 13 and 2013-14:- M/s N.R. Finance Pvt. Ltd IT(SS)No.201/Ind/2016 Assessment Year 2012-13 "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,72,71,700/- made by the AO on account of estimation of sale consideration on the basis of seized documents LPS-A3 found from the premises of the broker, Shri Kamal Goyal without appreciating the facts and evidences brought into light by the AO during assessment proceedings. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal on or before the date, the appeal is finally heard for disposal. ITA No.1043/Ind/2016 Assessment Year 2013-14 "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,31,01,675/- made by the AO on account of estimation of sale consideration on the basis of seized documents LPS-A3 found from the premises of the broker, Shr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rected to be annulled. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the additional ground of department appeal is erring in doubting the authenticity of the registered sale deed documents executed before the sub-registrar office which are documents in public domain and cannot be considered as additional evidences. Accordingly the cross objector prays that the additional grounds of department be directed to be dismissed. 6. In the case of another assessee namely M/s N.R. Company Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal for Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14:- ITANo.204/Ind/2018 Assessment Year 2009-10 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,89,47,147/- without considering the seized documents page no.64,66 and 68 of LPS-A3 from the premise of the broker who sold the plots in the area developed by assessee and the fact that there is huge difference in guideline value and sale consideration shown by the assessee which supports that the sale price was suppressed in books. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tunity was provided to assessee firm and the assessee firm never asked for cross examinations during the course of assessment proceedings. 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, deduct from, or otherwise amend the above ground of appeal ITA No.423/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 33,72,67,720/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed receipts from sale of plots without considering the seized documents page no.64,66 and 68 of LPS-A3 from the premise of the broker who sold the plots in the area developed by assessee and the fact that there is huge difference in guideline value and sale consideration shown by the assessee which supports that the sale price was under mentioned in books. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that no opportunity was provided to assessee for cross examination even when in statement of the partner, recorded u/s 131 of the Act, the details of seized documents were provided to him as such sufficient opportunity was provided to assessee firm and the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar 2012-13 and 2013- 14 the sole grievance is that opportunity of cross examination was not provided and the additions were made merely on the basis of third party information gathered at the back of appellant. 9. We observe that the appeals before the first appellate authority were first decided in the case of M/s N.R. Finance Pvt. Ltd and subsequently in the case of M/s N.R. Company (In short 'NRC'). In the order of 'NRC', Ld. CIT(A) referred to the finding of Ld. CIT(A) given in the case of M/s N.R. Finance Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, as agreed by both the parties, we are taking the case of M/s N.R. Finance Pvt. Ltd as the lead case and the common issue arising in case of both the assessee(s) shall be decided on the basis of facts of M/s N.R. Finance Pvt. Ltd. 10. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of construction of residential and commercial complexes and development of residential colony and plots. The appellant is one of the companies of M/s Appolo Group of Indore which was searched u/s 132 of the Act on 29.01.2012. The assessee company entered into an agreement for development of l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... books of accounts. Seized documents from the premises of Mr. Kamal Goyal clearly spells out the fact of actual sale price and therefore the order of Ld. A.O should be confirmed. 15. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee namely M/s N.R. Finance Pvt. Ltd took us through the paper book filed on 10.09.2018 running from page 1 to 153 as well as the written submissions filed before us which reads as follows:- At the outset, it is submitted that despite an extensive search proceeding being undertaken by the department, no incriminating material was found at appellant's place. The Ld. AO solely relied on the noting in the diary seized from the premises of broker namely Shri Kamal Goyal. Further, the additions made by the Ld. AO are based on estimate, guess work, presumptions which is bad on facts and in law. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was submitted to the ld. AO that the appellant does not have an business relation with the broker Shri Kamal Go al and no lots were sold through him. The Ld. AO did not dispute such fact but alleged that the brokerage might have been paid in cash to the said broker. Such allegation is totally based on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a specific request that if any reliance is laced on the seized diary, then an opportunity to examine Shri Kamal Goyal may kindly be provided but such request was not considered by the Ld. AO. Thus, the alleged addition made by the Ld. AO was in total ignorance to the principles of natural justice. The department had recorded statements of broker Shri Kamal Goyal during the search proceedings u/s 132(4) where on oath he had stated that noting in the diary are trade inquiries. During the course of appellant had demonstrated the fact that noting mentioned seized diary in the form of buyers sale rates & date of sale etc. are not matching with the actual registered documents. Thus such demonstration c1earl corroborates the fact that the noting in the seized diary were not related to the appellant and were merely trade inquires which had not crystalized into an material transaction. Also this fact adequately proves that the seized diary being relied for the alleged addition is nothing but a "dumb document" as department failed to link the same with another corroborative evidence and therefore it has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. The following is the summary o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gical end. Without prejudice to the above, due to such reason also, the registered sale deeds cannot be considered as additional evidence but a clarificatory evidence as it being an extension of same trail initiated by the Ld. A.O. The sale registers being a legally executed document has clarified that the particulars mentioned in the seized documents vary with the actual transaction. Hence we humbly submit that the ld. CIT(A) was not required to confront the same material to AO and there is no violation of Rule 46A. We place reliance in the case of Dy. CIT v Rungta Mines Ltd (IT (SS) Appeal Nos. 30 to 33 (Kol) of 2015 dated 9-3-2018 which has held as under on the issue of public documents not being additional evidence 25. In the revised grounds of appeal, the department has challenged the aforesaid action of the Ld. CIT(A) as violation of Rule 46A, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has not confronted these materials with AO and elicited a Remand Report before taking into consideration these new materials. which the AO was not privy to during assessment proceedings. We note that as per the scheme of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) enjoyss plenary &, co-terminus powers as that of AO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal evidence. We note that it is not the case of the department that these reports which are taken note by the Id CIT(A) are false and concocted, and thereby the Id CIT(A) was misled to pass the impugned order. Moreover we note, even if these documents are excluded, then also the impugned order of Id CIT(A) survives. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the department raised in this revised ground. 16. Since similar issue relating to two different assessee(s) arising out of the common facts are under consideration, opportunity was also given to the Ld. Counsel for the assessee appearing on behalf of M/s N.R. Company who took us through the paper book running from page 1 to 89 and reliance was placed on the following written submissions specifically with regard to the alleged undisclosed sales receipts of sale of plots of 'N.R. Estates'. i) The assessee submits that the above addition was made by Learned AO solely relying upon certain information provided to her by DCIT (Central) , Indore. According to the said information , during the course of the proceedings of search at one Apollo Group of Indore and certain other persons including the residential premis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollowing decisions:- a) In case of Dinshaw Daravshaw Shroff Vs CIT reported in 11 ITR 172 b) In case of Union of India & others Vs. Sheo Shanker Sitaram & another reported in 95 ITR 523 c) In case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd & other Vs. CBDT & others reported in 83 ITR 335 d) In case of The Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works Ltd. Vs. DCCT reported in 29 STC 153 e) In case of Elphinstone Picture Palace Vs Union of India & another reported in 74 ITR 115 f) In case of Ambica Oil & General Mills Vs. TT officer cum Assessing officer reported in 158 Taxman 167(Del) g) In case of Genesys International Corporation Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in (2012) 28 Taxman.com 134 ii) The assessee submits that in response to the above proposal of AO for making addition on the assumption of sales at higher rate, the assessee submitted detailed replies from time to time and emphatically denied the allegation regarding unaccounted income or sales at higher rate than those reflected in relevant documents and the books of accounts. The summary of the replies submitted by assessee is as under:- a) Reply dated 27/11/2015 ---In response....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the Indian Registration Act , no other document except the registered sale deed could be accepted as evidence in respect of such transaction. Assessee also contended that in absence of any corroborative evidence, no addition on the basis of the information from broker's diary could be made in the hands of assessee . The assessee also submitted that the burden to prove the allegation was solely upon the department and no addition could be made without bringing on record any cogent and concrete evidence. c) Submission dated 23/12/2015 --- The assessee reiterated that it had no connection with broker Kamal Goyal by submitting the details/ names of broker who had dealt with assessee , along with Plot Nos. in respect of which brokerage was paid to them . Copies of A/Cs of the brokers who had acted as brokers for assessee were also filed. Not only this, the assessee also submitted copies of accounts of all buyers / parties to whom the sales were effected by assessee in the year under consideration. The assessee also submitted a detailed chart with names of the parties to whom plots were sold along with details of Plot Nos. , areas , rates at which the plots were sold and brou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no stretch of imagination be treated as an evidence much less cogent or positive evidence to level an allegation against the assessee regarding sale of plots at the rates mentioned in his diary . The said person Kamal Goyal has not uttered a single word which can lead to the inference that he has at any time acted as broker for the assessee nor the said letter can constitute an evidence to say that the assessee has effected sale of plots through him or through the chain of brokers as alleged by him . Moreover the Plot Nos. referred to in his diary as well as reply do not match with the Plot Nos. sold by the assessee. As already stated above the information contained in his dairy regarding the Plot Nos. as well as the parties does not tally with the actual sales effected by the assessee. Under the circumstances, the addition made by AO placing heavy reliance upon the broker's diary is in fact an addition without any basis to support the same and thus was rightly deleted . In fact there is no evidence at all either available in the broker's diary or brought on record by AO which can justify the conclusion regarding unaccounted sales drawn by AO . v) The assessee further subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yer, the goods (here the Plots) and the consideration for sale or purchase of goods and unless a nexus is established between two such persons and convincing proof is available to show that consideration did pass as a result of such sale , it would be difficult to assume that a sale of goods from one person to other has resulted. Where there is no clinching evidence to establish jural relationship of vendor and purchaser, the onus on the department become heavier, for, it should scrutinize the material with lynx eye and afford to the assessee at every material point of time an opportunity to countermand the same or let in evidence to outweigh the weight of such material . If the principles laid down in the above case are applied to the facts of the present case, in absence of any attempt on the part of AO to establish nexus of the material with the assessee and in absence of any clinching evidence against the assessee having been brought out by department , department's burden is not discharged and the addition must fall to the ground . The same principles are reiterated in following judgments . b) CIT Vs. Vedprakash Choudhary reported in (2008) 305 ITR 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly as per section 72 of the Evidence Act where the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property or any matter required to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to section 91 , no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted , as between the parties to any such instrument or their representative in interest for the purpose of contradicting , varying , adding or subtracting from its terms. In view of the aforesaid principles of the Evidence Act, as against the registered sale deeds executed by appellant in favor of the buyers stating therein the consideration for which the property has been transferred to the buyers , the diary notings of a stranger viz broker Kamal Goyal are not admissible as evidence . As a matter of fact the only admissible evidence is the registered sale deed itself. The notings of the diary have thus no evidentiary value in the eyes of law and no addition on that basis can be made . Reliance in this respect is made upon the decision of ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of Shri Parshwanath Construction v/s ITO reported in (2014) 24 ITJ 409 , where the Hon'ble ITAT has applied the aforesaid principles of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In fact the diary does not even mention the name of assessee . Under the circumstances the said diary notings cannot be the basis of any addition against the assessee . At this stage it may also be important to note that since the said diary was recovered from the premises of Kamal Goyal it was for Kamal Goyal to explain the said transactions. As such , the addition on basis of such dumb documents cannot be sustained. Reliance in this respect is placed on following decisions a) Gyankumar Agrawal Vs. ACIT reported in 30 Taxman.com 114 (ITAT-Hyd). b) Ashwani Kumar Vs. ITO reported in 39 ITD 183 (Del) , c) CIT Vs. Girish Choudhary reported in 163 Taxman 608(Del) . d) CIT Vs. S. M. Aggarwal reported in 162 Taxman 3 (Del) . e) CIT Vs. Vatika Landbase P. Ltd . reported in 383 ITR 320(Del) . f) ACIT Vs. Ashok Kumar Vig reported in [2007] 15 SOT 85 (ITAT-Ranch-URO]. g) Smt. K.V. Lakshmi Savitri Devi Vs. ACIT reported in 30 Taxmann.com 117 (ITAT-Hyd) x) Without prejudice to all the above grounds , the assessee further submitted that assuming without admitting that any addition on the ground of understatement of consid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed diary. Though both the assessee(s) submitted that they have no relation of any nature with Mr. Kamal Goyal and the alleged information in the diary seems to be rough since the actual transaction has taken place with other persons whose names are not appearing in the seized diary. Assessee(s) also submitted that no incriminating material was found from the premises of the assessee namely M/s N.R. Finance Pvt. Ltd which could prove that any 'on money' was received. Ld. A.O however estimated the rate of sale as per his own working and made addition in the hands of both the assessee(s) in the respective assessment years for the area of plots of land sold by them. In the instant appeal the common issue relating to the suppressed income of sales for respective assessment years under appeal were computed by the Ld. A.O in the following manner:- N.R. FINANCE PVT. LTD Assessment Year Area in Sq.ft Rate per Sq.ft disclosed in books Rate per Sq.ft applied by A.O Alleged suppressed income 2012-13 35082 322.63 1100 2,72,71,700 2013-14 136927 327.93 1300 13,31,02,629 N.R. COMPANY Assessment Year Area in Sq.ft Rate per Sq.ft disclosed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Taking the above rates, as a bit higher, an average rate of NR Estates may be estimated in view of the facts that rates in properties appreciates every year. Accordingly, you are requested to show cause as to why the assessment year Wise, average rate sale of flats in NR Estates be estimated as under: - Assessment Year Average estimated rate 2009-10 500/- 2010-11 700/- 201,1-12 900/- 2012-13 1100/ - 3. You are also requested as to why the difference of actual amount received as per above table and as shown in the books of accounts of the assessee company may not be treated as unaccounted income of the assessee company and addition of the same amount be made the total income of the assessee company for respective assessment year. " 3.2.2 In response to the said show cause notice, the assessee filed written submissions stating that no incriminating documents have been found at the assessee's premises and it is for this reason no additions can be made on account of unaccounted transaction in its hands. 3.2.3 The Assessing Officer held that the said diary has been found during the course of search proceedings carried o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the copy of LPS-A-3 found and seized from the premises of Shri Kamal Goyal which is self explanatory and therefore, the plea of the assessee for cross-examining does not hold any ground. 3.2.5 The Assessing Officer has determined the income as under: Particulars / Asstt Years 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Plot Area Sold (In Sq. Ft) 53680 41812 21202 35082 136927 Rate estimated (In Rs.) 500 700 900 1100 l300 Estimated Sale Consideration (A) 26840000 29268400 19081800 38590200 178005100 Sale Consideration in Books (B) 16544355 19576000 6800700 11318500 44903425 Cost of Plots (C) 14474278 11274196 5716913 9459513 36920726 Estimated Profit on Sale of Plot(A-C) 12365722 17994204 13364887 29130687 141084374 Profit reflected in books lB-C) 2070077 8301804 1083787 J858987 7982699 suppression of Income on sale of Plot 10295645 9692400 12281100 27271700 133101675 3.3.1 From the above statement of Shri Kamal Goyal it is seen that seized document A-5 contains common details of all the deals and seized docum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant in the appeal proceedings. At this stage, before drawing a final conclusion, it is relevant and necessary to consider the ratios of the following decisions. 3.4.1 The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of C!T vs. Anil Bhalla (2010) 322 ITR 191 (Del.) observed that no independent material or evidence had been brought on record by the AO to establish that the notings/jottings recorded on the loose sheet or paper represented an unaccounted transaction, then the explanation of the assessee should be accepted. In this situation, the Tribunal was right in holding that the loose sheet or document does not represent any investment or expenditure over and above the books of accounts of the assessee out of income alleged to be earned from unaccounted sources . 3.4;2 The Hon'ble lTAT Hyderabad 'B' Bench in the case of DCIT vs M. Aja Babu following the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of C!T. nil Bhalla (supra), CIT vs. Dmesh Jam (HUF) 211 Taxman 23 (Del) and CIT vs. Jmpal Aggarwal 212 Taxman 1 (Del), ITAT Mumbal m the case of ACIT vs. JP Morgan India Pvt. Ltd. 46 SOT 250(Mumbai), held that the addition made by the AO based....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer based on the loose paper, which is not a conclusive evidence and, therefore, the same is not sufficient to make the addition. In our opinion, no addition can 'be made on the basis of dumb documents/note book/loose slips in the absence of any other material to show that the assessee has made investments in land. Noting on the note book/ diary/ loose sheets are required to be supported/ corroborated by other evidence and should also include the statement of a person who admittedly is Q party to the noting and statement from all the persons whose names there on the note book/ loose slips and their statements to be recorded and then such statement undoubtedly should be confronted to the assessee and he has to be allowed to cross examine the parties. The vendor has not examined in this case. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on the basis of loose paper and the order of the CIT(A) is hereby upheld dismissing the grounds raised by the revenue on this issue. 18. As a result appeal in ITA No. 1756/Hyd/2012 is dismissed." 3.4.3 Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l assess or reassess the total income in. respect oJ each assessment year falling within such 6 assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisitioned, as the case may be, on bringing on record the material to show that there is undisclosed income of the assessee. In other words, there should be material on record to show that the income is assessed on the basis of material! evidence in hands of the Assessing Officer. 27. Being so, in our opinion, guess work is not possible in case of search assessment framed u/s. 143(3) or u/s. 153A of the Act without any proper material. The AO shall have the basis for assuming that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is out of undisclosed income. It is not permissible to assess the undisclosed income in the absence of any other evidence on arbitrary basis. The unsubstantiated loose sheets cannot be considered as a conclusive evidence to make any addition towards undisclosed income. It was held by the Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. V. C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 that "file containing loose sheets of papers are not books" and hence entries tberein ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns with the other material found either during the course of the search or on investigation. As a result, we hold that document No. 7 is a non-speaking document. 3.4.8 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.M. Agrawal 293 ITR 043 (Del) held that unless and until the contents of the document are proved against the person, the possession of the document or handwriting of that person on such document by itself could not prove the contents .of the document. It was further held that the document recovered during the course of search from the assessee was held to be dumb document and the addition on the basis of the same is not sustainable. 3.4.9 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Landbase (P.) Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 320 (Del) held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of documents found and seized from the computer of an employee of the assessee company showing that the rate of sale of floor space in commercial was higher than the rate shown by the assessee was not sustainable as the rates mentioned in the seized documents did not represent any completed or materialized transaction. Moreover, the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....64, 66 and 68 of LPS-A3 but has not brought out any corroborative material to show that the inference made by him is correct and sustainable. 4.2 The appellant company had no dealings with the broker, Shri Kamal Goyal and the Assessing Officer has also not disputed this fact. 4.3 Further, the appellant had asked for opportunity to cross examine the witness during the assessment proceedings which was not given to the appellant. 4.4 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions in the preceding paragraphs, the addition of Rs. 1,02,95,645/- for AY 2009-10, Rs. 96,92,400/- for A.Y. 2010-11, Rs. 1,22,81,100/ - for A.Y. 2011- 12, Rs. 2,72,71,700/- for A.Y. 2012-13 and Rs. 13,31,01,675/- for A.Y. 2013-14 made on account of estimation of sale consideration on the basis of seized document, Page Nos. 64, 66 and 68 of LPS-A3 found from the premises of the broker, Shri Kamal Goyal is hereby deleted. Ground Nos. 2,3 and4 for A.Ys 2009-10 to 2012-13 and Ground Nos. 2 and3 for A.Y 2013-14 are allowed. 20. In the case of another assessee namely M/s N.R. Company which was decided by the Ld. A.O on a later date similar addition was made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Plot No G-12A of 4800 Sq Fts which was again sold at Rs. 1311/- Per Sq Fts was recorded. That on right side name of the broker of seller and buyer was recorded. The said transaction was executed on 27-05-2012. 3.4} That on Page No 29 of A-5 is the copy of ledger wherein the amount as received by me from the broker of buyer and also paid to the broker of seller was recorded for my memory purposes. 3.5} That on Page No 5 of A- 16 is the memory paid wherein the rate of different plots of different colony was noted. That plots which are available for sale was recorded in this page. That no financial transaction was recorded in this page. This letter may please be treated as compliance to the summon as issued U/ s 131 of the Income Tax Act. " 2.9 Shri Kamal Goyal in his reply has reiterated the notings on page nos. 64, 66 and 68 of the seized diary. The appellant had submitted before the Assessing Officer that it had no business connection with the broker Shri Kamal Goyal and had submitted the detailed chart with the names of the parties to whom the said plots mentioned in the seized documents were sold. Here also the Assessing Officer did not give t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es mentioned in the seized documents page nos 64, 66 and 68 of LPS-A3 seized from the premises of Shri Kamal Goyal but has not brought out any corroborative material to show that the inference made by her is correct and sustainable. 2.12 In view of the above, the addition of Rs. 1,89,47,147/- made on account of undisclosed receipts from sale of plots is deleted and this ground of appeal is allowed. 21. The above finding of Ld. CIT(A) in the case of both the assessee(s) with respect to the issues were similar and therefore the finding of only one of the assessment year of respective assessee has been reproduced above. Appeals of the revenue for some of the assessment years got dismissed on account of low tax effect on the basis of CBDT Circular No 17 of 2019 Dated 8th August 2019. 22. Now the question before us is that "whether the Ld. A.O was justified in applying the estimated rate per sq. feet of land for the plots sold by both the assessee(s) as against the sales shown in the regular books of accounts duly evidenced by registered sale deeds"?. 23. We observe that in the alleged seized diary found from the premises of Mr. Kamal Goyal there was information of few....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 325 Shradha Jain -- G18 4000 1150 Himanshu 28-Mar-13 G 18 4801 269.640075 N.R. Finances Pvt. Ltd -- 134 3600 1150 Himanshu 29-Mar-12 134 3599 300 Deepak Bhatia -- 135 3600 1150 Himanshu 28-Mar-13 135 3599 325 Punit Mandhwani -- F 19 4000 1300 Himanshu 5-Nov-12 F 19 4001 349.912522 Namrta Lalwani -- F22 4000 1300 Himanshu 11-Aug-12 F22 4001 269.64009 N.R. Finances Pvt. Ltd -- D 18 1150 OK 28-Mar-13 D 18 4001 269.46009 N.R. Finances Pvt. Ltd -- 140 1100 OK 20-Jan-12 140 3595 300.417246 Manju Sati -- 141 1100 OK 141 3595 Not sale till date -- D 16 1125 OK 31-Mar-13 D 16 6415 325.779423 Vikash Thakar -- D 17 1125 OK 30-Mar-13 D 17 7578 325 Umrani Yadav -- C6 6500 1250 OK 28-Mar-13 C6 6074 269.639941 N.R. Finances Pvt. Ltd -- B 17 CW B 17 That Plot No. estate colony ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Plots) and the consideration for sale or purchase of goods and unless a nexus is established between two such persons and convincing proof is available to show that consideration did pass as a result of such sale , it would be difficult to assume that a sale of goods from one person to other has resulted. Where there is no clinching evidence to establish jural relationship of vendor and purchaser, the onus on the department become heavier, for, it should scrutinize the material with lynx eye and afford to the assessee at every material point of time an opportunity to countermand the same or let in evidence to outweigh the weight of such material . 31. In the light of above stated judicial pronouncements and the facts as narrated above and in the given facts and circumstances of the case we find merit in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and submission made by both the assessee(s) and are of the considered view that the additions made by Ld. A.O applying the estimated rate of per sq. feet of land sold by both the assessee(s) seems to be purely a guess works and is merely made on surmises and conjectures and the impugned additions has thus been rightly deleted by Ld. CIT(A) in view of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dispute to the fact that registered sale deed is available on public domain. The transaction of purchase and sale of immoveable property are registered before the registering authority appointed by the Government and the documents are available on public domain. These documents could have been called for by the Ld. A.O without informing the assessee(s). In these given facts and circumstances of the case and also under the provisions of I.T. Act which provides co-terminus power to Ld. CIT(A) as are there with the Ld. A.O, we are of the considered view that the alleged additional evidence cannot be categorized as additional evidence for the issue raised in the instant appeals. We accordingly dismiss the additional ground raised by the revenue in the case of M/s N.R. Finance Pvt. Ltd for Assessment Year 2012-13 and 2013-14. 35. Now we take up Ground No.3 of Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 in the case of M/s N.R. Company challenging the deletion of addition of Rs. 15,67,401/- by Ld. CIT(A) which was made by the Ld. A.O for the excess development charges claimed by the assessee. 36. Brief facts relating to this issue are that during the course of scrutiny proceedi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."N.R.Estate". b)The assessee firm on 04/04/2007 had entered into a development agreement with M/s. N.R. Finance (a non-related concern though there is a similarity in name) and as per the agreement, the development of the land was to be made by M/s N.R. Finance. Copy of Agreement is enclosed herewith. c)The total development amount agreed was Rs. 23,11,00,000/- for the total Plot area of 14,63,796 Sq. Ft. d)Thus the Development cost worked out to Rs. 157.87 per Sq. ft. This Development cost was debited in the Books of accounts year wise as per the Bill received from the developer on the basis ofQ actual work completed during each respective year. e)When the assessee firm could not pay the Development amount te the developer, it mutually entered into a Supplementary Development Agreement dated 05/04/2008 with the developer. The copy of Agreement is also enclosed herewith. As per this Supplementary Development agreement, the assessee firm agreed to give developed plots to the developer. f)These developed plots were of the sold plots to the developer. Details developer is enclosed herewith. The said sales are included in the gross sales sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ismissed and oblige. 41. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Through Ground No.3 for Assessment Year 2013- 14 in the case of M/s N.R. Company the revenue has challenged the deletion of addition made by Ld. A.O towards development charges at Rs. 15,67,401/-. We observe that as per the agreement between the assessee and M/s N.R. Finance Pvt. Ltd 468396 sq.ft of area was agreed to be given to developer M/s N.R. Finance Pvt. Ltd (In short 'NRFL') against the agreed development charges of Rs. 12.63 crores. Selling rate was fixed in the year 2008 at Rs. 269.64/- per sq. Ft but finally as against the 468396 sq. ft of land agreed to be sold to the developer, 473221 sq. ft of land was sold, in other words 4825 sq. ft of extra area was given. Ld. A.O denied the benefit of development charges computed at Rs. 15,67,401/. on this extra land sold to developer at 4825 sq. Ft. Ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition observing as follows:- 8.2 It is true that as against total area of 4,68,396 sq. Ft to be sold to the developer as per the supplementary agreement dated 05/04/2008 the appellant has sold extra 4825 sq. Ft totalling to 4,73,221 sq. ft. However,....