TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 926
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... erred in holding that the assessment completed u/s 153C read with section 153A of the Act is ab initio void, by applying on the ratio laid down by the Hon hie Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s RRJ Securities Ltd. (2015) 62 taxmann.com 391 (Delhi) which has not been accepted by the department and appeal is pending before the Apex Court. Accordingly, appeal is recommended on this issue. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 39112550/- by relying on the ratio o f the judgement delivered by the Jurisdiction High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 which has not been accepted by the department and the appeal is pending before the Apex Court. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 88,71,950/- by relying on the documents furnished during the course of appellate proceedings, that were never produced before the AO so as to enable him an opportunity to examine the relevant documents filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. On the facts and in the cir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s under: "5. The written submissions of the appellant have been carefully considered. At ground of appeal no. 1, the appellant has challenged the initiation and completion of assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act, for the six AYs 2005-06 to 2010-11 instead of the six AYs 2008-09 to 2013-14. It is contended that AYs 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 are beyond the limitation period of six years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the date of handing over/recording of satisfaction u/s 153C, as per proviso of sec. 153C(1) of the Act. The appellant has submitted that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of M/s SDS group of companies on 25.03.2011. During the search operation of the said third party, certain documents belonging to the appellant were found and seized. These documents pertain to alleged transactions of purchase ahd sale of land in District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. The AO of the searched person, vide letter dated 29.03.2013, handed over copies of the seized documents and statements recorded which were received by the AO of the appellant on 05.04.2013. In the assessment as well as in the appellate proceedings, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....io void, as the A.O. had no jurisdiction for making the assessment for A.Y. 2006-07, being beyond the period of six years prescribed. Accordingly, ground of appeal No. 1 is allowed." 4.1 It is evident that Assessing Officer has considered six assessment years from 2005-06 to 2010-11 for assessment under section 153C of the Act corresponding to search period in the case of M/s SDS Group of Companies, i.e., six assessment years corresponding to the previous years immediately prior to the previous year in which search was conducted. Whereas, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of RRJ Securities Ltd. (supra) held that wherever seized documents belonging to third-party have been found during the course of the search, then for assessment under section 153C of the Act has to be taken for six assessment years corresponding to the previous years prior to the previous year in which such seized material/document along with satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer of the search person are received by the Assessing Officer of the assessee. In the case of the assessee, relevant seized document belonging to the assessee along with satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer of the search....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quently developed and sold by M/s Parasvnath Developers Ltd. The profit on sale of such land has been claimed to be declared by M/s Parasvnath Developers Ltd. in the relevant year of sale. The Assessing Officer, however, is of the view, that assessee being registered owner of the land, it was required to declare profit on sale of such land in its return of income filed. Accordingly, he after verifying sales of developed plots, made addition for profit amounting to Rs. 1,87,19,545/-, which has been computed as under: "(viii) For the above reasons the contention of the assessee is not accepted and profit from sale of this land is computed in the hands of the assessee. The assessee had bought 47 bighas of land for a total price of Rs. 1,46,43,770/-. As per information gathered bigha of land consists of 3,020 sq. yds. Therefore, the cost per sq. yd. is computed below: Total no. of yds in 47 bighs -47 X 3025 = 1,42,175 Sq. yds Cost per sq. yd. -1,46,43,770/142175 = Rs. 103 per sq. yd. Total area of plots sold = 1,100 sq. yds. Total cost of plot sold 3600 X 103 = Rs. 370,800 As no evidence with regard to development cost has been brou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e AY 2006-07. But the land was held on behalf of M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd., and no sale of land had been made by the appellant during the years since then, or in the year presently under consideration. The said land has continuously been shown as work in progress in the books of the appellant up until the AY 2012- 13. The appellant has affirmed that besides the said land admeasuring 47.01 bjghas, it has not purchased any other land, and also has not sold any land. The AIR information that has been received in respect of purchase and sale of land made in district Jodhpur, Rajasthan, for assessment year 2012-13 pertains to sale of plots by M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd. 5.2. The AR has submitted that the appellant had entered into an agreement with M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited on 01.09.2006, as per which, M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited was to make an advance to the appellant company to purchase, or arrange to purchase land in village Bansi, Jodhpur. The appellant had accordingly purchased 47.01 bighas of land on behalf of M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited. The appellant, even though it was the registered owner" of the said land which was shown as stock in trade in it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igha (i.e. 44 bigha and 61 biswa) however, development rights have been transferred to the developer company 47.01 bigha 1,46,43,770 47.01 bigha 3,03,71,900 60.15 bigha Total land alleged to be purchased 107.15 bigha 107.15 bigha @ 20 lacs per bigha on which profit of Rs. 17,04,84,330/- calculated and addition was made 07-08 - 47.01 bigha - - - 08-09 - 47.01 bigha - - - 09-10 47.01 bigha 31,06,700/- Purchase of 4700 sq yds 31,06,700/- 4700 sq yds 10-11 ' 47.01 bigha * 58,27,311/- 1100 sq yds 3600 sq yds 11-12 " 47.01 bigha - 3600 sq yds 12-13 ' 47.01 bigha " 1,87,19,545/- 3600 sq yds * 13-14 Trfr to PDL 1,46,43,770 47.01 bigha 58,78,13,030 Deemed profit on transfer of 47.01 bigha land held as WIP on 01.04.2012 16,10,237/- 370 sq yards (47.01) bigha 5.5. The appellant has reiterated that it has not sold any part of the land admeasuring 47.01 bighas which continued to be shown as WIP in the books of the appellan....