2023 (3) TMI 1309

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gating to Rs.25,66,563/- made by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the submissions made and evidence produced by the appellant with regard to the impugned addition. The observations made and conclusion reached by CIT(A) to the extent, the same are contrary to record are denied. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming following additions/disallowances: i) Addition towards alleged underreported sale price of flats Rs.20,00,000/- ii) Addition towards cash found during survey Rs.66,563/- iii) Addition towards meter boxes ins....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Account, addition of Rs. 66,563/- as unexplained cash and disallowance of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards meter expenses. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. There is a delay of 1 day in filing the present appeal which has been explained by the assessee. The delay appears to be genuine hence the delay is condoned. 6. The Ld. A.R. submitted that addition towards allege under reported sale price of flats, the assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of Real Estate as developer / builders. During the year under consideration the assessee has undertaken the project called Park View consisting of 12 residential flats. A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1,111/- and not for Rs. 75,11,111/-. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of the Tribunal DCIT vs. Rajat Agarwal (2012) (27 taxmann.com 166)(Jaipur). The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the agreement to sale dated 12.04.2016 which was found was not signed and was not registered document and does not have evidentiary value. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Arvik Properties & Investments (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) (88 taxmann.com 652) (Mum.). 7. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has categorically mentioned that it is an unaccounted amount which was already mentioned in agreement for sale dated 12.04.2016. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly made addition to that extent. 8. Heard both the parties and perused all the ....