TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 27/03/2015 by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cent. Cir-8(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. Though the assessee has raised several grounds, the effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition made by the ld. AO by estimating the profit percentage @30% in respect of advances received from the project in earlier years. 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. A search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out on 09/01/2013 in the group cases belonging to M/s. Lotus-Enpar group. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was centralized u/s. 127 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee offered 30% of the actual receipt which worked out to Rs. 4,04,17,500/- as against Rs. 22.50 Crores. The assessee even gave the break-up of actual receipts of Rs. 13,47,25,000/- in the F.Y. 2012-13 as under:- Name of the Party Amount Received (Rs.) Abha Singh 97,00,000.00 Anand Rathi Financial Services 5,57,25,000.00 Niranjan Housing Pvt. Ltd., 4,83,00,000.00 Vijay Nanji & Sona Dhavangale 2,10,00,000.00 Total 13,47,25,000.00 b) The assessee also submitted that these sums were shown as advances received against construction project in the balance sheet. The assessee also stated that two parties had in fact cancelled their booking during the year and assessee had to refund the advance to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e year, the ld. AO concluded that the same profit percentage at 30% ought to have been offered to tax in respect of advances received during the respective earlier assessment years. Having stated so, the ld. AO brought to tax the additional profit percentage of 14% (30-16%) on the advances received as on 31/03/2012 and brought to tax the differential sum of Rs. 17,28,09,395/- while completing the assessment. This action of ld. AO was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 3.3. The aforesaid facts stated above are not in dispute and hence the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. It is a fact that assessee had been offering estimated profit percentage @16% from A.Yrs. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. Due to the change in the market rates decid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted by the ld. DR before us. 3.4. We find that the ld. DR argued that assessee had given statement u/s. 132(4) of the Act at the time of search proceedings offering Rs. 22.50 Crores. Despite this statement, assessee had not offered the same in the return of income. Hence, he argued that the ld. AO was justified in making the addition in the aforesaid manner. 3.5. We find that the said offer made by the assessee in the sum of Rs. 22.50 Crores was made based on expected project receipts and expected project sales during the year under consideration of Rs. 75 Crores. But it is a fact on record that actual receipts during the year was only Rs. 13,47,25,000/- on which profit percentage of 30% was duly offered to tax by the assessee. The Re....