TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 305
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the business as builder and developer. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed his return of income on 02-09-2014 declaring total income of Rs. 32,52,505/-. In course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed that during the year under consideration, the assessee had sold eight flats. From the details furnished by the assessee, he found that in respect of flat No.202 sold to Mohammad Azmi, the declared sale consideration was shown at Rs. 9,61,000/- whereas the Stamp Valuation Authorities for the purpose of stamp duty, has valued the flat at Rs. 16,44,500/-. Noticing this, the assessing officer called upon the assessee to explain why the differential amount ofRs. 6,83,500/- being the difference in value between ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, for the sales turnover of Rs. 36,53,000/- declared for the current year, the assessee has incurred net loss of Rs. 6,03,243/-. When the assessee explained that due to completion of the project in the impugned assessment year, he had to incur a lot of expenses resulting in loss, Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not convinced and was of the view that due to the excess expenditure claimed under various heads including labour expenses, expenses of Rs. 3,36,235/- the assessee has suffered loss. Further, he observed, some of the flats in the project were sold at a higher price. Thus, from the aforesaid facts, Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concluded that the assessee has understated the sale consideration. Therefore, he sus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mi for a consideration of Rs. 9,61,000/-. The assessing officer, having found that the Stamp Duty Authority has followed the flat at Rs. 16,44,500/- for stamp duty purposes, added back the differential amount of Rs. 6,83,500/- by invoking the provisions of section 43CA of the Act. Though Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was convinced with provisions of section 43CA would not be applicable to the subject transaction, however, instead of deleting the addition, he introduced a new reasoning of his own to sustain the disallowance. As could be seen from the impugned order of Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the reasons for which he sustained the disallowance made by the AO are as under:- (i) The assessee has incurred loss of Rs.....