TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 345
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... true. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the search & seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T.Act, 1961 was carried out in the case of the assessee on 12/09/2012. The assessee filed the return of income on 27/09/2013 declaring total income to the tune of Rs. 7,88,92,810/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee derived net profit at Rs. 8,14,95,460/-, income from house property of Rs. 21,85,533/- and interest in sum of Rs. 29,55,904/-. after claiming the deduction of Rs. 7,6,99,089/- u/s 80IB(10) and Rs. 45,000/- u/s 80G. The assessee firm has declared the total income to the tune of Rs. 7,88,92,809/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act assessing the income of Rs. 15,86,85,240/-, after making additions on account of sale of parking of Rs. 8,17,500/- and sale of FSI in cash of Rs. 7,50,00,000/.The assessee was not satisfied on account of addition raised by the AO. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who allowed the claim of the assessee. Therefore, the revenue has filed the present appeal before us. ISSUES NO.1: 4. Under this issue, the revenue challanged the deletion of the addition of Rs. 8,17,500/- made on account of unaccounted sales ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of parking but the amounts received have to be held as income from other sources in light of the transfer of property Act. As the assessee had not included the sale of parking in his regular books of account, the AO held that the books are not reliable and liable to be rejected. It is held by him that the receipts from sale of parking are not included in the agreement and also not shown in the regular books, the AO rejected the assessee's argument that the amenities offered by the assessee and shown in the books are same as parking and rejected the books of accounts of the assessee u/s 145(3) of the Act 11. Further, the AO made additions on account of sale of parking slots/garages of phase XV, Golden Nest by stating as under; assessee's contention is not accepted and the sale of parking slots/garages of phase XV, Golden nest, Bhayander is disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The income is held to be income from other sources. Despite the fact that the assessee has denied any sale of parking it deserves the credit for the amounts which has been shown to be included in the agreement as seen from the scanned documents placed in the order. Hence out of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same seized material which shows that total parking slots sold independent of the flat sales were about 126 slots against which the appellant had actually received an amount of Rs. 50.36 lacs tilt the date of the search and balance to be received was Rs. 2,80 cr. Thus total amount received separately for sale of parking slots would come to Rs. 3.35 crs. The appellant has included an amount of Rs. 3,13,30,000/- on account of sale of parking in the sales account in the asst year 2013-14. Thus viz a viz the contents of the seized material, there is nothing to hold that the appellant had collected cash outside the books of accounts against sale of parking area. The calculations done by the AO to make the addition are not based on any satisfactory evidence. The addition made by the AO is therefore directed to be deleted. 9.8 The appellant's alternate argument is that income from sale of parking area would also be income from the eligible project. This contention is also acceptable in view of the case laws cited by the appellant. As the receipts are eligible for deduction u/s 80IB (10), it become irrelevant as to in which year the appellant has credited these receipts." 13.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 of the seized bundle no. 38 is an unsigned document. The agreement is a draft for a transaction in June, 2012 between the assessee firm and M/s Jainam Developers, a partnership firm. On page 20 of the said draft agreement, the total consideration mentioned is 21.5 cr. and the manner in which it is to be paid is also mentioned. As per this draft agreement, 2.5 Cr. has been admitted to have been received. Rs. 7.5 Cr. was to be paid by 30th August, 2012 and the balance was to be paid in eight equal monthly installments from the date of execution. The search and seizure operation took place on 12/09/2012. As per page 18 of the seized document, a ledger account of Jainam Developers is also found and seized. It is interesting to see that the sale consideration of land has been shown at Rs. 14 Cr. and this is a Journal entry dated 20/05/2012 in the ledger account of Jainam Developers in the books of the appellant firm. From page 16 and 17 of the seized bundle no. 38; a summary of advance tax calculation for the A.Y. 2013-14, as on 15/09/2012, has been computed. In these advance tax calculations, the consideration amount for sale of land/FSI is again shown at Rs. 14 Crs. it is possible t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....developed by M/s Sonam Builders. However, in your books of accounts, only Rs. 14.00 crores are booked against the sale of FSI, Why the remaining amount of Rs. 7.50 crores should not be considered as your unaccounted receipts which are not reflected in your regular books of accounts. Ans. I would like to state that we have received Rs. 4,50 crores as advance from M/s jainam Developers and the document mentioned in above question by you is an unsigned draft copy of agreement. The deal is not yet finalized; hence tentatively we have booked the receipt of Rs. 14.00 crores in our regular books for the purpose of working of advance tax installment, 19. As can be inferred from the statement, the partner of the appellant firm in his statement on oath during the course of search reiterated that the document found was only an unsigned draft copy of agreement and that the deal was yet to be finalized. It was also stated by him that they had tentatively booked the receipt of Rs. 14 Cr. in regular books for the purpose of working of advance tax installment. 20. In view of the seized documents as indicated above and the statement u/s 132(4) recorded during the course of search, I am of the v....