TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 457
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12/2017 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by ITO, Ward-29(4), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer 'AO'). 2. The facts in brief are the Assessee firm is a Limited Liability Partnership firm engaged in the business of Real Estate Developers and other related activities. The Assessee firm submitted its return of income at an income of Rs.8880/- by filing its return of income electronically on 28.09.2015. The Case was selected for scrutiny assessment. The necessary details and papers were submitted before the Assessing Officer from time to time. The background of issue is that Mr. Bimal Sareen & Mrs. Sony Sareen entered into partnership agreement and formed Sharan Svadha LLP vide agreement dated 25.09.2014. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, New Delhi who has deleted the addition. 3. It was concluded by Ld. CIT(A) :- "6.10 In this case, apart from the value of sale consideration computed by the Registrar ffice for the purposes of calculation of stamp duty there is nothing on record to prove that the appellant has made more payment than what is stated in the sale deed. With regard to the above matter, it is noted that the facts in the above mentioned decisions of the ITAT relied upon are similar to the facts in the instant case. In this regard, the landmark decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K P Verghese v ITO 131 ITR 597 is relied upon in which it was held that - "The onus of establishing that taxab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowed." 4. The Revenue is in appeal raising following grounds:- "i. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs.7,84,00,000/- made by the AO on account of difference in sale consideration of property of Rs.4,50,00,000/- and Stamp duty paid on the Circle Rate of the Property at a consideration of Rs. 12,34,00,000/-, treating the same as purchased cost of the said property paid from undisclosed sources, without appreciating the facts of the case mentioned by the AO in the assessment order. ii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the facts of the case mentioned by the AO in details....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n has been made. The AO has taken the sale value determined by Registrar Office for the purpose of computation of stamp duty for computing the purchase consideration. It is seen that on the one hand the AO has not accepted the valuation of the property determined by the Registered Government Approved Valuer and on the other hand the AO has not referred the matter to the Valuation Officer in terms of section 142A of the Act to estimate the value of the property. The AO has not brought on record any material/evidence whatsoever to substantiate that the difference amount of Rs.7,84,00,000/- was paid from undisclosed sources to the seller by the appellant. In this regard Ld AR refered to the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Ani....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ale consideration of the property under consideration is taken at Rs. 12,50,00,000/- paid by assessee firm from undisclosed sources. Therefore, consideration amount computed/ valued by Registrar Ofrfice is treated as sale consideration of said property and difference amount of Rs. 784,00,000/- is added back to assessee firm total income treating the same as purchased cost of the said property paid from undisclosed sources. Since, I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed income and furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately. [Addition of Rs. 7,84,00,000/-]" 8. Ld. CIT(A) has made a direct reference to this ignorance of Ld. AO in para no. 6.8 of its order. ....