TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 1307
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ences brought into light by the AO during assessment proceedings." Grounds of appeal in IT(SS)ANo.268/Ind/2016, Shri Mohanlal Chugh 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO of Rs.27,30,000/- on account of on-money received on sale of various units in 'The View' Project and Rs.3,65,88,500/- on account of on-money received on sale of various units in 'Almas Elements' Project without appreciating the facts and evidences brought into light by the AO during assessment proceedings." Grounds of appeal in ITANo.239/Ind/2017, Shri Mohanlal Chugh 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO of Rs.1,40,74,000/- on account of on-money received on sale of various units in 'Almas Element' Project and Rs.1,75,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment in property and Rs.3,79,04,952/- on account of undisclosed investment for purchase of plots in 'Pulak City' project without appreciating the facts and evidences brought in to light by the AO during assessment proceedings. Grounds of appeal in IT(SS)ANo.77/Ind/2017, Smt. Reena Devi Chugh 1. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee, for all three assessment years was selected for scrutiny and necessary notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act served upon the assessee. Finally, the Assessing Officer framed the assessments for A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13 u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act and for A.Y. 2013-14 u/s 143(3) of the Act, by passing a common Order dated 30.03.2015. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals for all three assessment years before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO. 4. Felt aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeals before this Tribunal for all the three assessment years. As all three appeals relate to the same assessee and the issues raised are common, they were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. Ground No. 1 for A.Y. 2011-12: 5. This ground of appeal of the Revenue pertains to additions of Rs.1,89,38,425/- and Rs.32,70,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of on-money received on sale of units in 'The View' and 'Almas Elements' projects respectively of the assessee. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee along with his wife namely....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs.27,30,000/- for A.Y. 2012-13]. In respect of one another project of the assessee titled as 'Almas Elements', the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had sold many flats and duplexes in the name of 'Almas Elements' near Saket Nagar, Indore during F.Y. 2011-12 and F.Y. 2012-13. Again, in respect of this project too, the Assessing Officer noted that the amount of Rs.5,39,32,500/- as per registered sale deeds from sale of flats in 'Almas Elements' was not found recorded in the regular books of account of the assessee. The Assessing Officer again noted that normally the actual sales considerations are at least twice the amount as per the registered deeds. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.32,70,000/-, Rs.3,65,88,500/- and Rs.1,40,74,000/-, respectively, for A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 on account of on-money from sale of units in 'Almas Elements' project. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that although the assessee has himself claimed not to have maintained any regular books of account u/s 44AA of the Act, but the bills, vouchers and details in respect of the projects were duly produced be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rify the actual amount of receipt of sale consideration from the buyers of properties. However, the Assessing Officer simply by rejecting the explanation and submissions of the assessee and disregarding all the documentary evidences made an addition equivalent to the amount of sales consideration which was getting reflected in the registered sale deeds. The Assessing Officer also assumed that the assessee had received the on-money component on the sale of flats belonging to the share of the developer. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO & Anr. (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) wherein it has been held that the onus lies on the Revenue to establish that an assessee has understated the consideration for transfer of an immovable property and unless such onus is discharged by the Revenue, there cannot be any presumption as regard to the understatement. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) held that no effort has been made by the Assessing Officer for making any investigation or enquiry to substantiate his theory of receipt of on-money or estimation of net profit @30%. Finally, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions so made by the AO in the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2012-13: 8. The only ground of appeal of the Revenue for A.Y. 2012-13 pertains to additions of Rs.27,30,000/- and Rs.3,65,88,500/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of on-money received on sale of units in 'The View' and 'Almas Elements' projects respectively of the assessee. This ground is identical with that raised for the A.Y. 2011- 12. Further, while dealing with the identical Ground No. 1 for A.Y. 2011-12 in the preceding paras, we have discussed in detail on the additions made by the Assessing Officer in 'The View' and 'Almas Elements' projects. Accordingly, following our own findings given in the preceding paras, this Ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Ground No. 1 for A.Y. 2013-14: 9. The only ground raised in the appeal of the Revenue for A.Y. 2013-14 pertains to additions of Rs.1,40,74,000/- on account of onmoney received on sale of units in 'Almas Elements' project, Rs.1,75,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment in property and Rs.3,79,04,952/- on account of undisclosed investment for purchase of plots in 'Pulak City' project. 10. The issue relating to the addition of Rs.1,40,74,000/- on account of on-money received on sale of units in 'Alm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in house property. 11.1 Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), at para (5.2) of the impugned order, noted that the assessee claimed that the agreement was only at draft stage, a fact which is brought out by the unsigned, undated agreement. The assessee further submitted that the sellers failed to provide the necessary documents establishing their clear title due to which the agreement came to an end. The sum of Rs.50,00,000/- which was paid by Shri Nitesh Chugh, the son of the assessee, to the sellers was returned by them to Shri Nitesh Chugh vide RTGS on 29.04.2013. The assessee has also submitted before the Assessing Officer a notarized affidavit of Shri Anil Sogani, one of the partners of M/s. Gold Terrace Apartment, the purported seller, stating that other than the initial token money of Rs.50,00,000/-, no other payment was made towards the said agreement. It is also stated in the affidavit that the advance of Rs.50,00,000/- was refunded on 29.04.2013 through RTGS. The Ld. CIT(A) further found that the affidavit remained uncontroverted. The Ld. CIT(A) also found that the Assessing Officer has not brought any evidence on record to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugh RTGS but, the Assessing Officer did not make any reference thereof in his assessment order and instead, the AO made an incorrect finding to the effect that the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was not found refunded by the seller to the assessee family. We also find that the Assessing Officer, except placing his reliance on the payment terms stated in the unsigned and undated agreement, could not bring any corroborative evidence on record to establish that the installment of Rs.1,75,00,000/- was actually paid before the date of the search. We have also carefully perused the judicial pronouncements cited and discussed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. The decisions relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) are directly applicable to the present issue to avoid repetition, the same are not discussed here again. In view of the above facts, circumstances and material available on record, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.1,75,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on this count. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the Revenue to this effect has no merits. 12. Now, as regard the addition of Rs.3,79,04,952/- on account of unexplained investment f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Vivek Chugh. Accordingly, an aggregate addition of Rs.3,79,04,952/- was made by the Assessing Officer in the assessee's income for A.Y. 2013-14 on account of unexplained investment in land. 12.1 Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A), at para (6.4) of the impugned order, noted that the Assessing Officer made the addition by relying on the observation that the assessee group is in continuous process of earning undisclosed income and has made reference to some evidences found during the search regarding other issues. As per the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer further observed that in another project Silicon City of the Jhaveri Group located in the vicinity of Pulak City, the prevailing rate of plots was Rs.750/- per sq. ft. in A.Y. 2012-13 and Rs.1100/- per sq. ft. in A.Y. 2013-14. During the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), additional evidences were submitted under Rule 46A which were duly forwarded to the Assessing Officer for comments. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer has neither objected to the admissibility of additional evidences nor offered any comments. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ho have purchased the plots in same colony at the same rate of Rs.400/- per sq. ft. at which the assessee and his son purchased. However, the Assessing Officer could neither comment nor controvert any single document or evidence furnished by the assessee. We also find that the Assessing Officer has also not brought any corroborative evidence on record to establish that the assessee has paid any consideration over and above that stated in the registered sale deeds. Further, the Assessing Officer has also not made any independent enquiry from the sellers or from the other parties who have purchased the plots in the Pulak City. We find that the Assessing Officer has also not brought any incriminating document or material on record to establish that the assessee has paid any amount over and above the purchase consideration stated in the registered sale deeds. We noted that the Assessing Officer has made a reference of some rates prevailing in Silicon City of Jhaveri Group of Indore but, in our considered opinion, it cannot be a parameter or yardstick for determining the purchase price of the plots in another colony. Thus, in our view, the onus was lying on the assessing officer to esta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arch and seizure, the receipts of Rs.6,33,12,350/- as per registered sale deeds from sale of units in 'The View' project were not found recorded in the regular books of account. The Assessing Officer further stated that the taxable profit cannot be less than 30% of the total sales consideration as per registered sale deeds. The Assessing Officer also noted that in real estate business, normally the actual sales considerations are at least twice of the amounts shown in the registered sale deeds. The Assessing Officer further observed that 19% profit shown to have been derived by the assessee on sale of units in "The View Project" is contrary to the actual scenario. The AO made a comparison of "The View" project with one residential project of the husband of the assessee titled as "Almas Elements". The Assessing Officer further added that the cost of construction would have been lower in commercial project as the quality of finishing varies drastically in both the type. The Assessing Officer also noted that the various members of the group were involved in receiving on-money in land transactions. As per the Assessing Officer, some incriminating documents were found by the Search Part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....screpancy in such bills and vouchers was found by the AO. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee and her husband have jointly shown short term capital gain of Rs.1,20,21,991/- on deemed sales consideration of Rs.6,55,18,000/- u/s 50C which works out to 18.34%. Further, the assessee and co-owner have not claimed any other administrations expenses, financial expenses or depreciation as the assessee carried out the activities of development of project as an investor and not as a builder. The Ld. CIT(A) further stated that without bringing any corroborative evidence on record the profit of the project cannot be estimated @30%. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO & Anr. (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) wherein it has been held that the onus lies on the Revenue to establish that an assessee has understated the consideration for transfer of an immovable property and unless such onus is discharged by the Revenue, there cannot be any presumption as regard to the understatement. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) held that no effort has been made by the Assessing Officer for making any investigation or enquiry to substantiate his theory of re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds are that during the course of the search proceedings, it was found that a palatial house in the name of the assessee is under construction at 85, Pragati Vihar, Indore. As per the Assessing Officer, investment in the construction of house was not found disclosed in the books of account of the assessee. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee was required to explain the total investment in construction of house made by her and sources thereof. In response, the assessee filed her reply. Thereafter, a reference u/s 142A of the Act was made by the Assessing Officer to the District Valuation Officer, Bhopal for estimation of value of investment in construction of the said house. The DVO submitted his valuation report estimating the value of investment at Rs.4,03,15,000/- as against Rs.3,60,40,102/- shown by the assessee. Finally, the Assessing Officer, by accepting the valuation report of the DVO and rejecting the explanation of the assessee, made additions of Rs.42,75,898/- in five assessment years viz. A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2013-14 [Rs.2,49,482/- in A.Y. 2011-12]. 19. Being agrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that bes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding to the DVO's estimation, the construction work was carried out only during the period from the F.Y. 2008-09 to the F.Y. 2012-13 whereas according to the assessee's claim, the construction work lasted till F.Y. 2013-14. We find that over and above the cost of Rs.3,60,40,102/- incurred by the assessee uptill F.Y. 2012-13 [A.Y. 2013-14], the assessee had also incurred expenditure towards cost of construction amounting to Rs. 47,61,258/- during the F.Y. 2013- 14 relevant to A.Y. 2014-15. We also noted that the assessee, in support of the cost of construction of Rs.47,61,258/- during F.Y. 2013-14, the assessee has duly furnished copies of the bills and bank statements evidencing payments which were forwarded by the Ld. CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer. However, we find that the Assessing Officer could not controvert any of the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee. We also find that the Assessing Officer has also not brought any corroborative evidence or material on record to establish that the construction of the house got completed at any time earlier than that claimed by the assessee. We further find that the assessee has also challenged the DVO's report by poin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....e. @Rs.50 lacs per acre but on record, only payment of Rs.52 lacs was disclosed. The Assessing Officer noted that Shri Mohanlal Chugh, father of the assessee, in his statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act, admitted an additional income of on-money of Rs.2,08,00,000/- by his son, being the assessee, against sale of the aforesaid agricultural land. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee has admitted to have received total sale consideration of Rs.2,60,00,000/- against sale of agricultural land at Rs.52,00,000/-. The assessee also admitted that out of total consideration of Rs.2,60,00,000/-, only sales consideration of Rs.52,00,000/- was recorded in books and the remaining consideration of Rs.2,08,00,000/- was received by him from the purchaser as on-money. The Assessing Officer noted that in the return of income filed under s.153A for A.Y. 2012-13, the assessee has shown taxable long term capital gain from sale of land to the extent of Rs.50,12,179/- only. The Assessing Officer further observed that out of the total sales consideration of Rs.2,60,00,000/-, the assessee claimed indexed cost of acquisition of land at Rs.76,06,453/- thereby showing capital gain of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd. (2012) 208/25 taxmann.com 173 wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that the income disclosed in the search which was received in the course of carrying out business activities as a builder. The ld. CIT(A) further stated that the amount of on-money received by the assessee on account of sale of land has to be taxed under the head 'income from capital gains' and not under the head 'income from other sources'. The ld. CIT(A) also placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Pune in the case of Malpani Estates vs. ACIT reported in 64 SOT 105 (Pune) wherein it is held that the character of income does not change because of the search. The ld. CIT(A) further noted that the provisions of section 115BBE are not applicable in the case of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration. Finally, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.2,08,00,000/- so made by the Assessing Officer on account of on-money received on sale of agricultural land for the A.Y. 2012-13. Now, aggrieved with the Order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. CIT-DR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has been defined under clause (45) of section 2 of the Act and according to which, the expression 'total income' means the total amount of income referred to in section 5, computed in the manner laid down in the Act. Thus, in our considered opinion, even in the assessment proceedings u/s. 153A, the total income has to be computed in the same manner in which it is computable under the normal assessments under the provisions of s.143(3) of the Act and no discriminatory treatment can be given for computation of total income in pursuance of the assessment made u/s. 153A of the Act. We also find that the position of law for giving a different treatment has got changed only by way of insertion of a new section 115BBE in the statute by way of the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1-4-2013, which is not applicable for the assessment year under consideration. Thus, we are of the considered view that the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act in respect of the on-money of Rs.2,08,00,000/- received from sale of subject capital asset. This view is supported by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Pune in the case of Shri Manish Madhav Malpani vs. ACIT, as also relied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent unlike in the matter of Fakir Mohmad Haji Hasan (supra)" We also find that the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Pune in the case of Malpani Estates vs. ACIT (2014) 39 CCH 0413 (Pune Trib), by following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sheth Developers supra, has also held that the assessee was eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB(10) in relation to additional income offered in statement u/s. 132(4) in the course of search and subsequently declared in return filed in response to notice u/s. 153A. We find that the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Shree Bhagwanbhai Revabhai Prajapati vs. ACIT (IT(SS)A No. 377/Ahd/2014, Order dated 24.06.2015) has also held that the assessee is fully entitled to the benefit of exemption u/s. 54B of the Act in respect of the on-money. 24. Before us, the ld. CIT-DR could not controvert any of the decisions relied upon by the assessee and the ld. CIT(A) and also could not bring on record any contrary decision to support the claim of the Revenue that the on-money received by the assessee from the sale of capital asset would be taxed separately and no deduction u/s. 54F of the Act would be available to the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould not furnish any satisfactory explanation. Thus, according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee has given cash loan of Rs.3,39,000/- (Rs.1,89,000 + Rs.1,50,000) out of his undisclosed income for A.Y. 2013-14. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.3,39,000/- in the assessee's income for A.Y. 2013-14 on account of cash loans given but not found recorded in books. 27. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that out of the cash loans aggregating to Rs.3,39,000/-, the assessee has already offered a sum of Rs.1,89,000/- in his return for A.Y. 2013-14 filed post-search and therefore, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition to the tune of Rs.1,89,000/- made on this count. Further, as regard the remaining addition of Rs.1,50,000/-, the ld. CIT(A) noted that such addition is made on the basis of LPS-7/59 which is a promissory note dated 25.03.2007 given by Shri Sanjay Wadhwani in favour of Shri Vivek Chugh. The assessee submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that the said loose paper is not pertaining to him or any other family member and further, the date on the promissory note is 25.03.2007 and the income on the basis of su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....located at Rau Pithampur Road. The assessee has shown purchase of these plots in March 2013 at a total sale consideration of Rs.1,10,13,600/- (excluding registry expenses). However, it is seen from the registry documents that as per the government guideline value for these plots was Rs.2,85,62,500/-. According to the Assessing Officer, as against the guideline value of Rs.1037/- per sq ft., the assessee has shown purchase of these plots at Rs.400/- per sq. ft. only. The Assessing Officer also observed that in another search group namely 'Jhaveri Group of Indore', evidences were found that in their project namely Silicon City located in the vicinity of the Pulak City, prevailing rate of plots in A.Y. 2012-13 was Rs.750/- per sq. ft. and in A.Y. 2013-14, it was Rs.1100/- per sq. ft. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee has suppressed the purchase price of plots in Pulak City, Indore and made an addition of Rs.1,75,48,900/- [Rs.2,85,62,500 minus Rs.1,10,13,600] in the hands of the assessee for the A.Y. 2013-14 on account of undisclosed investment in purchase of plots in Pulak City. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for purchase of plots in Pulak City on account of purchase consideration paid being less than the guideline value cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire addition of Rs.1,75,48,900/- made by the Assessing Officer in the assessee's income. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the addition deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT-DR vehemently argued supporting the order of the Assessing Officer. The ld. DR also filed a Paper Book which is carefully perused and placed on record. Per contra Ld. counsel for the assessee referred and relied on the findings of Ld. CIT(A). 30. We have heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the records placed before us. We find that the assessee has furnished various documentary evidences including newspaper cuttings in support of the disputed nature of the colony. We also find that the assessee has also furnished the details of other parties who have purchased the plots in same colony at the same rate of Rs.400/- per sq. ft. at which the assessee purchased. However, the Assessing Officer could neither comment nor controvert any single document or evidence furnish....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appeals of the Revenue for the A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 are dismissed. M/s. CHUGH REALITY (A.Y. 2013-14) Ground No. 1: 32. This ground of appeal of the Revenue pertains to addition of Rs.22,71,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of sale consideration from sale of units of 'The Mark' project, addition of Rs.5,26,74,600/- on account of undisclosed investment in purchase of plots in 'Pulak City' project and addition of Rs.3,81,11,476/- on account of unexplained expenditure in 'Sun City' project by the assessee. 33. As regard the addition of Rs.22,71,000/-, the briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that during the course of search and post-search proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee firm had purchased an old house situated at Plot No. 24A, Old Palasia, Indore, admeasuring 25,464 sq. ft. for a total consideration of Rs.8,21,00,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 06-10-2008. It is stated by the Assessing Officer that after purchasing the above old house, the assessee firm got the old house demolished and constructed a multi-storeyed building thereon, titled as 'The Mark'. As per the Assessing Officer, during the course of search proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing Officer then made a reference of certain incriminating documents found and seized during the course of search in the cases of group assessees. Finally, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee firm has suppressed its sales and accordingly, made an addition of Rs.49,000/- in A.Y. 2011-12, Rs.35,17,000/- in A.Y. 2012-13 and Rs.22,71,000/- in A.Y. 2013-14. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the incriminating documents, as referred to by the Assessing Officer as found and seized in the case of group members of the assessee firm, were not having any bearing on the project 'The Mark' of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) noted that estimations of the additions on the basis of assumption that as the group members were indulged in receiving on-money in land transactions, there is an understatement of sales in the project of the assessee also is not an acceptable, sustainable and justifiable approach. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO & Anr. (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) wherein it has been held that the onus lies on the Revenue to establish that an assessee has unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roject. However, the Assessing Officer did not make any independent enquiry or investigation to disprove the claim of the assessee. In such circumstances, the Assessing Officer cannot be allowed to proceed on presumptions and assumptions. We derive support from the ratio laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO & Anr. (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) wherein it has been held that the onus lies on the Revenue to establish that an assessee has understated the consideration for transfer of an immovable property and unless such onus is discharged by the Revenue, there cannot be any presumption as regard to the understatement. We also find that the assessee firm is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate development which has not been doubted or disputed by the Assessing Officer. We find that the units in the said project were held by the assessee firm as its stock-in-trade and not as capital assets and therefore, the provisions of s.50C which apply only in the case of capital assets, cannot be made applicable to the case of the assessee. We find that this Bench earlier in the case of ACIT vs. Danish Housing Coopertative Societ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng undisclosed income and has made reference to some evidences found during the search regarding other issues. As per the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer further observed that in another project Silicon City of the Jhaveri Group located in the vicinity of Pulak City, the prevailing rate of plots was Rs.750/- per sq. ft. in A.Y. 2012-13 and Rs.1100/- per sq. ft. in A.Y. 2013-14. During the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), additional evidences were submitted under Rule 46A which were duly forwarded to the Assessing Officer for comments. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer had neither objected to the admissibility of additional evidences nor offered any comments. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that the colony Pulak City was being developed by Shri Ritesh Ajmera and due to some encroachments, various cases were pending before the judicial forums in respect of the said colony. Such fact is seen from the newspaper cuttings which have been placed on record. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that the details of other parties who have purchased the plots in same colony at Rs.400/- per sq. ft. have also been placed on record. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....consideration over and above that stated in the registered sale deeds. Further, the Assessing Officer has also not made any independent enquiry from the sellers or from the other parties who have purchased the plots in the Pulak City. We find that the Assessing Officer has also not brought any incriminating document or material on record to establish that the assessee has paid any amount over and above the purchase consideration stated in the registered sale deeds. We noted that the Assessing Officer has made a reference of some rates prevailing in Silicon City of Jhaveri Group of Indore but, in our considered opinion, it cannot be a parameter or yardstick for determining the purchase price of the plots in another colony. Thus, in our view, the onus was lying on the assessing officer to establish that the assessee had paid any on-money over and above that stated in the registered sale deeds. However, the Assessing Officer failed to discharge such onus and made the addition merely on presumption and assumption. We further find sufficient merit in the contention of the assessee that the impugned transactions of purchases were carried out during the financial year 2012-13 relevant to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owner i.e. M/s. Medicaps I.T. Park Pvt. Ltd. and as a caution money towards project development, the amount of Rs.4 Cr. was advanced to the said company. As per the Assessing Officer, it has been extracted from the internet and facebook page of the assessee firm that the assessee is in fact the developer of the Sun City project. The Assessing Officer stated that the assessee firm was engaged in development of the Sun City project at Rau and had also incurred the total cost of Rs.3,81,11,476/- on the project development as evident from page nos. 12 to 23 of LPS-2 found and seized from the residential premises of the partners of assessee firm. The Assessing Officer noted that from the verification of books and bank statements of the assessee firm as well as its partners, the expenditure to the tune of Rs.3,81,11,476/- as mentioned in the three RA Bills (LPS-2) is not found recorded. The Assessing Officer further stated that the veracity of the bills cannot be doubted as the same are duly acknowledged. The Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.3,81,11,476/- as unexplained expenditure incurred by the assessee in Sun City Project. The Assessing Officer further stated that as the ti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied upon certain decisions of the judicial authorities on the ratio that the seized papers having not corroborated by any independent evidence are dumb documents which cannot be considered as a reliable document or acceptable piece of evidence. Finally, the Ld. CIT(A) made a conclusion that the Assessing Officer has simply proceeded to make additions on the basis of the documents seized without bringing any evidence on record to show that Rs.3,81,11,476/- was incurred by the assessee towards development of Sun City, Rau which is not an acceptable, sustainable and justified approach. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire addition of Rs.3,81,11,476/- made by the Assessing Officer in the assessee's income. Being aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal against the addition deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). 38. The CIT-DR vehemently argued supporting the order of the Assessing Officer. The ld. DR also filed a Paper Book which is carefully perused and placed on record. Per contra Ld. counsel for the assessee referred and relied on the findings of Ld. CIT(A). 39. We have heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the records placed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see firm for marketing its proposed 'Sun City' project and for such purpose, the company had appointed the assessee as one of the agents. It has been further claimed that in such project the assessee had made bulk booking by giving an advance of Rs.4,00,00,000/- through account payee cheque during the financial year 2011-12 which has duly been entered into the regular books of account of the assessee firm. The assessee firm further stated that a copy of the resolution to this effect passed in the Meeting of the Board of Directors of M/s. Medicaps IT Park Pvt. Ltd., on 01-09-2011, which was also furnished before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee firm further claimed that the entire expenditure relating to the development of the said 'Sun City' project had been incurred by the above named company only and the assessee has not incurred any single penny in connection with such project. As regard the abstracts of the websites reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, the assessee firm submitted that it was making its efforts to market the project along with Medicaps I.T. Park Pvt. Ltd. only. The assessee firm further claimed that it was not having any veste....