TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2011-12 05-2-2018 against order under section 153A/250 of the Act 2. All these appeals have arisen consequent upon search action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 carried out at the residential premises of assessee and simultaneous survey actions at various business premises of other group concerns. The assessee belonged to the "M.P. Bullion" group of cases. Consequently, the assessment order was framed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act by making certain additions including the differential amount of sale consideration disclosed by the assessee in the return and the amount reflected in the AIR information on account of sale of shops. Against these additions, the assessee went in appeal before the first appellate authority, but partly succeeded. Against the decisions of the ld.CIT(A)both the Revenue and assessee are before the Tribunal. First we take up Revenue's appeals: IT(SS)A.No.78 and 552/Ind/2016 3. In both the appeals, the Revenue has raised common grounds which are identically worded. Therefore, the grievances of the Revenue in both the appeals are similar. They read as under: (i) Whether in the facts and in the circum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pers and unit UG 34/B which as per the distribution agreement was a part of the share of Shri Keshav Nachani Proprietor of Radhika Enterprise. Appellant pointed out that a confirmation of the sale from M/s Chugh Housing & Developers was also filed during the assessment proceedings. Appellant also filed a copies of the deed and copies of account and explained that the amount as shown in the AIR Information was the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority at Rs.27670000/- 85 Rs.5087500/- respectively while the agreed sale consideration was Rs.9900000/- and Rs.3100000/- respectively. The above explanation is found to be duly confirmed by M/s Chugh Housing & Developers and Radhika Enterises. The submissions of the appellant were also forwarded to the AO but no report from the AO has been received till date. In view of the above explanation the addition of Rs.31069500/- is found to be unwarranted. AO is directed to re-verify and allow the same. This ground of the appellant is therefore allowed." 6. This factual recording by the ld.CIT(A) has not been controverted by the Revenue before us nor furnished any evidence to compel us to find any merit in the allegations of the Revenue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs.1,71,02,449/- on account of alleged difference in sales as reported in accounts and as observed by the learned Assessing Officer on the basis of A.I.R. details available with hi-, without considering the submissions made before him and without adopting proper procedure laid down under the Act. 3. Without prejudice to the above and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Indore has erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer of considering the value of property at Rs.2,11,69,500/- being value for stamp duty purposes as reported in AIR instead of transaction values of Rs.1,07,00,000/-. 10. The brief facts leading to the present case is that the assessee is engaged in development of project. She earned income from house property, profit from business and profession in the name of Kunal Enterprises and income from other sources. In the original assessment framed under section 143(3) r.ws 153A, the AO made an addition of Rs.1,71,01,450/- on the basis of AIR information available with him. As per the information, the assessee had shown sale of immovable property to the tune of Rs.40,67,550/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....67550/-. Appellant explained that the amount of such sale pertained to M/s Chugh Housing 85 Developers with whom the appellant had entered into a development agreement for the development of property Orbit Mall on land owned by them. As per the said agreement the developers developed the project and it was agreed to distribute the constructed shops/offices. The sale as noted in the AIR Information was of Unit No. 501 which as per the distribution agreement was part of the share of M/s ugh Housing & Developers. Appellant pointed out that a confirmation of the sale from M/s Chugh Housing & Developers was also filed during the assessment proceedings. Appellant also filed a copy of the deed and explained that the amount as shown in the AIR Information was the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority and the agreed sale consideration was Rs.10700000/-. The above explanation is found to be duly confirmed by M/s Chugh Housing 8s Developers. The submissions of the appellant were also forwarded to the AO but no report from the AO has been received till date. In view of the above explanation the addition of Rs.17102449/- is found to be unwarranted. AO is directed to re-verify and allow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er submitted that as per the sale deed, it was clearly mentioned that amount of Rs.1,07,00,000/- has been received by M/s.Chugh Housing & Developers, as seller no.2 and so also, in the relevant bank statements and ledger accounts all the amounts so received were clearly reflected, and thus, there was no question of any suspicion on this point. This fact had been verified and taken cognizance by the ld.CIT(A) in the first appellate proceedings dated 25.2.2016, and therefore, there was nothing in the form of any material evidence with the department to contradict the claim of the assessee. However, the ld.CIT(A) did not satisfy with the explanation of the assessee, and found order of the AO to be justified, and accordingly, addition made by the AO was confirmed. 14. Aggrieved by the decision of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is now before the Tribunal. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee has filed a written submission in this behalf, and relevant part read as under: " For giving the appeal effect, the Ld AO again made enquiries and in para 6.1.2 observed that point No. 3 and 5 of the registry, support statement of the AR in which it is mentioned that the said property was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is therefore humbly prayed that the addition made by the Ld. AO and maintained by the Ld. CIT(A) may please be deleted." On the other hand, the ld.DR while supporting the order of Revenue authorities, also submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has justified in upholding the finding of the ld.AO on this issue, and therefore impugned appellate deserves to be upheld. 16. We have considered submissions of both the parties, and gone through the orders impugned order. We find that on the issue of impugned addition, the ld.CIT(A) in his first appellate order dated 25.2.2016 has categorical given a finding to the effect at page no.16 that the assessee has filed a copy of the deed and explained that the amount as shown in the AIR information was the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority and the agreed sale consideration was Rs.1,07,00,000/-, which explanation was found to be duly confirmed by M/s.Chugh Housing & Developers. In view of this explanation, the impugned addition made by the AO was unwarranted and required to be deleted. The ld.CIT(A) accordingly directed the AO to re-verify the same and delete the addition, and thus allowed the claim of the assessee. However, order of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erial and evidences furnished before him. And thereby while giving effect to the order of the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Indore recomputed income ignoring directions and thus, the appeal effect order is void and bad in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Indore has erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer of not allowing the addition made earlier in the order passed u/s 143(3) of Rs.3,10,69,500/- on account of alleged difference in sales as reported in accounts and as observed by the learned Assessing Officer on the basis of A.I.R. details available with him, without considering the submissions made before him and without adopting proper procedure laid down under the Act. 3. Without prejudice to the above and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Indore has erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer of considering the value of property at Rs.2,76,70,OOO/- and Rs.50,87,500/-being value for stamp duty purposes as reported in AIR instead of transaction values of Rs....