TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 803
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,02,88,986/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed receipts." 4. A search & seizure operation was conducted u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 26.02.2009 at the premises of the assessee. The Assessing Officer after going through the seized material found and seized made addition on account of undisclosed investment and unaccounted receipts. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who held that the additions have been made without any tangible, incriminating material demonstrating the liability to tax. 5. Hence, the appeal before us by the revenue. 6. For the sake of ready reference and completeness, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: Investments/Income recorded in a diary "1. In this regard, during the course of the assessment proceedings the assessee company and its directors have been requested to explain each and every paper found and seized during the course of assessment proceedings. The seized notebooks include Annexure A/2 seized from the residential premises having page No. 1 to 8. In this annexures on various pages certain fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Opposite side of Page No. 4 N-166 01.04.03 CR 13.08 A/C NiL Opposite side of Page No. 5 SM 01.04.03 CR 20.00 Int 1/4/03 To 31/12/08 10=35 1/1/2009 30=35 Opposite side of Page No. 6 Page No. 6 D-96 "Aaye" 31/4/05 2=41=64 1/8 cash 10=00 Int. 1/5/05 to 30/4 @75 paisa 19=50 25/1/2006 25=00 2=61=14 31-1-2006 15=00 Paid 35=00 1.6.6 B/F B/02=26=14 1.6.06 CR 2 Uchani Upto 30.5.08 11=14 31/10/07 Cash 5 3. In this regard the assessee has been requested to furnish the details of the transactions mentioned in the diary. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of books of accounts. Whichever entries made in this diary are the figures of loan given to the persons which name is mentioned in the diary in coded language in lacs of rupee. The year wise quantum of the amount is mentioned hereunder: 5. Opposite side of Page No. 2: On the opposite side of this page April 05 is mentioned. It means these transactions are related to the A.Y. 2006-07 and total amount involved in this page is Rs. 7=00 means Rs. 7,00,000/-. Page No. 2 On this page period of April 05 is mentioned it means these entries are pertains to the F.Y. 2005-06 (A.Y. 2006-07) and total amount involved is 7=75 means Rs.7,75,000/-. 6. Opposite side of Page No. 3 This page is an account of the person 20 No (Coded language). The date mentioned on this page is 01.04.03 means this page is pertains to the F.Y.2003-04 relevant to the A.Y. 2004-05. The total amount involved is 24.06 means Rs. 24,06,000/-. Below the entry A/c T/f/SH is also mentioned and credited in the concern as 'CR' is also mentioned. Means Rs. 24,06,000/- received from the person of '20 No.' and credited in the account of firm M/s Shriram Hariram Jewellers. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 means this page is pertains to the F.Y.2005-06 relevant to the A.Y. 2006-07. The total amount involved for the period is 2=41=64. On this page the sign of = used twice, means the first figure before the first sign of = mentioned is in the amount of crore and between the two sign of = represents the value in lacs. It means the amount involved is Rs. 2,41,64,000/-. Below the amount of Int 1/5/05 to 31/4 @ 75 paisa is mentioned and interest amount is presented as 19=50. This interest amount is pertains to the A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08 which worked out to Rs. 19,93,530/- and of Rs. 1,81,230/- for the A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. Below the entry total 2=61.14 (Rs. 2,61,14,000/-) and payment of Rs. 35.00 (Rs. 35,00,000) is mentioned and thereafter balance of 02/26.14 (Rs. 2,26,14,000/-) is mentioned. 10. Thereafter again the transaction dated 1.6.06 of 2 and dated 30/5/CR 11.14 and 31/10/07 cash 5 is mentioned. Means they have invested Rs. 2,00,000/- on 01.06.2006, Rs. 11,14,000/- in the same A.Y. i.e. 2007-08 and Rs. 5 lacs on 31.10.2007 i.e. A.Y.2008-09. The Year-wise unaccounted investment / income is mentioned hereunder: Page No. 2004-05 2005-06 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,64000/- and 2,26,14000/- respectively. Therefore, in one case' =' is being considered a decimal in figures in lac and in other case 7' is also deciphered as decimal in figures in crore. Similarly regarding notings on Page No. 6, Ld AO has mentioned that the appellant has invested Rs. 2,00,000/- on 01.06.2006, Rs. 11,14,000/- in the same A.Y. i.e. 2007- OS and Rs. 5 lacs on 31.10.2007 i.e. A.Y.2008-09. But in no case, Ld. AO could find the investments. For page nos 3, 4 and 5, Ld. AO himself has mentioned 'coded language' and has decoded the notings in his own way in the form of lac by adding zeros arbitrarily and with all suspicion. In the same way all figures have been deciphered and have been decoded merely on the basis of guess and suspicion. Therefore, the afore mentioned loose papers/notebook did not constitute to be a documents or account books. In any case it was wholly uncorroborated. Ld. AO was framing assessments of the entire group and in no case these facts and figures could be corroborated. It prima facie proves that Ld AO has assumed certain transactions have taken place of certain amounts imaginary without any corroborating evidence in his possession, either oral or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bros Vs. ACIT 52 ITD 412 (Pune) ADDI ITO Vs. T. Mudduveerappa Sons 45 ITD 12 (Bang) M. V. Mathew Vs. ITO 46 TTJ 353 (Coch) ITO Vs. W.D. Estate Pvt. Ltd. 45 ITD 473 (Bom) CIT Vs. SMS Investments Corpn. P Ltd. 207 ITR 364fRaj) CIT (Central II) Vs. K.K. Gupta 308 ITR 230(Delhi) ACIT Vs. Shailesh S. Shah 63 ITD 153 (Bom). "the AO has not given any reasoning or finding or has not mentioned any evidence or material, as to how or on what basis the figures referred to above were considered as assessee's income, we are of the opinion that the AO has not invoked any of the deeming provisions of Sections 69 to 69D and therefore, it is clear that these figures have been considered as assessee's income under the substantive provision of IT Act. Under the substantive provision of IT Act, it is now settled law that every receipt is not necessarily or cannot necessarily be income in the hands of the recipient and therefore, the question whether any particular receipt is income or not depends on the nature of the receipt and true scope as well as the fact of the relevant taxing provisions- as has been Held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riting is not proved not to speak of the contents reliance is placed on: V. C Shukla JT (1998) 2 SC 172 and LK Advani on Crl revision petition No. 265 of 1996in connection with the interpretation of the terms, documents and books of accounts. It is also very pertinent to mention that the term 'document' has to be read as per the meaning in Black Law Dictionary, Evidence Act and General Clauses Act along with the meaning of the words 'describe' and 'express' used in the definitions under the Indian Evidence Act and General clauses Act to support the contention that the document should have graphic presentation and distinct manifestation leaving no room for guess, surmise and conjecture and it should be capable of being evidentiary use. If this kind of loose papers/note books are to be considered as document for the purpose of assessment of income in IT Act, it would create rather a dangerous situation as any person having a little knowledge of the affairs of any person would create such document and thereby create all kinds of problems as apparently seem to have been done in this present case. 6.2 Regarding the Second Point we reiterate that during the year under appeal, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT Vs. Anil Bhalla 322 ITR 191 (Del) 'To support the addition on account of unexplained expenditure on the basis of jottings on a loose sheet of paper, it is necessary to establish that the notings represent unaccounted transaction, with the help of independent corroborative evidence. In this case apart from the noting, on the said paper, no other independent material or evidence has been brought on record. Accordingly, the allegation of unexplained expenditure outside the books of account has not been established in the assessment order. The addition is deleted.' 7. The AO has suspected imaginary prof its from the project which was not even started at Meerut, has been recorded in these loose papers/notebooks. The same matter has been taken in Ground No. 5 where there was no project in saleable condition and question of profits on purchase of land from Meerut Development Authority cannot arise. The AO has contradicted his statement regarding the source of unrecorded funds claimed to be noted in this annexure allegedly earned from its projects in hand because in this year an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- has been adopted from this annexure and from projects a substantia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reted as Rs. 2 Crores 41 Lakhs and 64 Thousand. Coming to the impugned AY 2005-06 the AO has in paras 4.8 & 4.10 of his order has interpreted opposite side of page no. 5 that this page relates to an account of the person SM (coded language) and the figure of 20.00 means Rs. 20,00,000/-. That below the figure of 20.00 the amount of interest for 01.04.03 to 31.12.08 is mentioned and the interest has been calculated at 10=35 which have been interpreted by the AO at Rs. 10,35,000/- for a period between 01.04.3 to 31.12.08. That this works out to a rate of interest at 0.75%pm. Accordingly, the amount of interest for AY 05-06 has been calculated at Rs. 1,80,000/- in para 4.8 as well as 4.10, which has been added to appellant's unaccounted income for the year. As against the findings of the AO, the ground taken by the appellant is that the AO has decoded the notings in his own way and in the form of Crore/Lac/Thousand by arbitrarily adding zeros on basis of guess and suspicion. The appellant has also argued that the aforesaid loose papers do not constitute/ qualify to be account books and in any case it is wholly uncorroborated. Relying upon various decisions as referred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s raise a presumption against the assessee who has been searched upon, that the contents of books of accounts and other documents found from his possession or control are true. However, in my considered view the word contents used in this section presupposes that the contents are intelligible, comprehensible and speaking either by itself or in correlation with other material or upon further investigation. Unless such is the case, mere jottings recorded on seized documents which are capable of several/various interpretations, lacks evidentiary value and is not sufficient enough to fasten tax liability on the assessee. The above views find support from the ratio of the decision in Atul Kumar Jain vs. DCIT 64 TTJ 786 Delhi, in paras 6.4 to 6.13 thereof which are quite elaborate and illuminating on the subject and are therefore reproduced as under:- 6.4. We find that the AO has made out the case for making such addition based exclusively on the said piece of paper found and seized during the course of search. It is, therefore, to be examined whether the said paper found and seized is a document having evidentiary value to prove the fact of the transaction. The word "d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... figures by the same does not describe or express the substance of any transaction and even if the said paper has been seized from the possession of the assessee the contents thereof are not capable of describing the transactions the way the AO has deciphered them without support of corroborative evidence of the parties attributed to the alleged transaction. The said paper, therefore, does not come within the compass of the definition of the word "document" to be used as an evidence. The paper seized, therefore, has no evidentiary value and accordingly the same cannot form the basis for assessing the undisclosed income. 6.7. The said piece of paper seized in search also does not represent the books of account. A book of account as per the Black's Law Dictionary means "A detailed statement, in the nature of debits and credits between persons; an account or record of debits and credits kept in a book; a book in which a detailed history of business transaction is entered; a record of goods sold or services rendered; statement in detail of the transactions between the parties. The book entry as per Black's Law Dictionary means "a notation, generally of figures or numbers, made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as deposited and the addition made was deleted. 6.12. In ITO vs. W.D. Estate (P) Ltd., the AO made addition on the basis of a file, a table diary belonging to a disgruntled employee found during search at his premises. This showed sales and sale amounts allegedly received as "on" money by the assessee. However, there was absolutely no evidence to show that the assessee in fact received "no" money payments. The assessee contended that such additions were based on hearsay evidence. The ld. CIT (A) confirmed the additions partly after being influenced by a report published by the Ministry of Finance wherein truthfulness of notorious practice of payment of black money in real estate transactions in metropolitan city of Bombay was discussed. The Tribunal held that report of the Ministry of Finance which highlighted prevailing practice could not be an adequate substitute for tangible evidence and the additions made were not held justified. 6.13. In the case of CIT vs. SMC Investment Corporation (P) Ltd. loan was advanced by assessee and thereon simple interest was calculated by the AO and assessed on accrual basis whereas the assessee claimed that no interest income was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the explanation and made an addition. The ld. CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal partly set aside the addition. It was held that even though explanation of the assessee that the loose papers did not relate to payment of wages during the year in question may not be accepted, in absence of any other material, the loose sheets by itself were not enough to make addition as per estimate of the Assessing Officer. It was observed:- "Now the question is regarding estimating the income on the basis of these loose slips. In our opinion, the Assessing Officer is not justified in estimating the sales on the basis of loose slips without substantiating that the assessee has actually made the sales to that extent of estimation made by the Assessing Officer and having no iota of evidence in the form of sale bills or bank account or movable and immovable property which represent earning of unaccounted income by the assessee. As such, the ld. CIT(A) to that extent is justified in holding that estimation of sales on the basis of loose slips represented payment of wages is not possible." 5. No doubt, a false explanation of assessee may be a circumstance to be taken into account for reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....JOP Plaza, Sector-18, Noida, some loose papers had been found and seized as Annexure A-2 by the search party SOB-6A, and search at 208, Ocean Complex, Sector-18, Noida, some loose papers had been found and seized as Annexure A-2 by the search party SOB-6. These pages contain a letter dated 03.01.2008 of Sh. Abdul Bari addressed to Sh. Raj at Gupta, Chairman, M/s Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd. The letter of Sh. Abdul Bari reads as under: "January 03, 2008 To Mr. Rajat Gupta, Chairman M/s Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd. 1/18B, AsafAli Road, New Delhi -110 002. Sub : Full & Final Settlement of Account on registration from employment. Ref. : Personal Meeting with Mr. Anuraag Gupta, Managing Director on 29.12.2008 Dear Sir, Your kind attention is invited to the above mentioned subject. At the outset, it is placed on record that the attitude of the Company Management is completely unprofessional, unfair and unethical in so far concerning making the full & final settlement of my accounts on my resignation from the company as Sr. Vice President (Marketing). After my numerous emails and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onal meeting with your goodself. That till the time of full and final settlement, the said car will be retained by me without any cost liability. 7. That it was further informed to me that the company will be deduction the original purchase price of the said car from my account if I want to buy back the car which is totally unfair and illegal!. As a matter of fact, it was agreed during my personal meeting with our goodself that I will be entitled to retain the said car at the depreciated value of the same (as per company's Books of Accounts) and the amount shall be adjusted from the outstanding dues of my account. 8. That it is manifestly clear that your company is acting illegally in not making fair settlement of my legal dues and the action of your company accounts to dishonest misappropriation of property and cheating which are prima facie criminal offences under the statutory laws. It is, therefore, requested that your goodself may kindly personally intervene in this matter and instruct the concerned to settle my legal dues immediately in a fair and amicable manner based on mutual trust failing which I would be felt with no other remedy but to seek le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, the net profit has been shown to have been calculated at Rs. 27,92,10,250. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to explain the material seized by parties SOB-6 and SOB6A from two different premises during the course of search and correlate the same with its regular books of account. In response, the assessee vide its letter submitted as under: "Annexure A-2 of SOB 6 contains page no 1 t oi l3, these pages are nothing but the trial balance, Prof it & loss Account and balance sheets of group companies which are duly recorded in regular books of accounts and can be verified from the audited balance sheets. all these companies have been filling their ITRs regularly within their respective jurisdiction. However, it seems that these facts mentioned in point no 7 of your notice requires explanations on annexure A-2 of SOB-6A. This annexure contains page no 1 to 91. page no 39 & 40 mentions the col lection against booking of Jaipur Projects during the period 01.08.2008 to 11.11.2008, all these entries have been accounted for in the regular books of account of the assessee, to substantiate this contention the copy of ledger account of parties is being enclosed. Page no 33 to 37,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ersant with the estimation and determination of estimated cost and sales of the Projects, present & future as well. Keeping in view the above mentioned facts and documental evidences there cannot be any correlation with the apparition that the company has suppressed its sales. Further, in order to determine and verification of facts there can be independent field enquiry also in respect of the existing progress of Jaipur Project, regarding sale of Mall project, the transaction for registration of the shops are at the sector-8 or above, this facts can be verified from the sale deeds already filled with our previous submission." 5.3 The assessee further submitted a letter of Sh. Abdul Bari contending therein as under: "1. I was working as Sr. VP sales and marketing with Magestic Properties Pvt. Ltd. Having its head office at 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. 2. That I had sent a letter in Jan 2008 regarding my full and final settlement with the company. 3. That in the above mentioned letter I had mentioned 1% incentive on the sale of the projects developed by the company, i.e. Melange Mall - Meerut and Jaipur Project. 4. That against above ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tradictory state of affairs has been furnished by the assessee. The same are, therefore, rejected. (iii) Now come to the chart with the heading "Target Sales Realization", seized during the course of search. The same has already been reproduced above in preceding para. If we go by the version of contention of the assessee, furnished by it during the course of hearing, in this chart, the target sale have been mentioned. If we correlate the chart with the letter of Sh. Abdul Bari, as has been done by the assessee itself in its reply, reproduced above in preceding para, then we will realize that they have a close connection between themselves and they are very much sequential. As is seen and summarized here that the target given in the chart till June 2008, then there is resignation of Sh. Abdul Bari of September, 2008 and finally his letter of claim for incentive over the sales dated January 03, 2009. The most connection between them is the figure of sale shown in the chart and claimed by Sh. Abdul Bari in his letter which has now become l inch pin in the case of the assessee. The further contention of the assessee is that there cannot be any correlation with the apparition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uted in the earlier years with a view that the assessee has been maintaining net profit margin of 12% from the first year, since when it had started accepting booking against its project. The working of this net profit year-wise is given below in the chart. Meerut Project Jaipur Project Asstt. Year Booking accounted for of Meerut Project Distribution of unaccounted profit being 12% N.P. (in Booking amount ratio) WIP of Jaipur Project Distribution of profit (in WIP ratio) Total Addition al Profit (Meerut + Jaipur) 2004-05 8114300 1828800 1828800 2005-06 15805034 3564000 138439901 14672496 15028896 2006-07 39146951 8812800 15985077 16920141 25732941 2007-08 100676986 22665600 37523874 39759540 62425140 2008-09 55269792 12441600 36693691 38893988 51335588 2009-10 100772996 22687200 34810761 36911595 59598795 TOTAL 319786059 72000000 263453304 279210250 35121020 5.6 The above facts clearly reveals that the assessee has suppressed its sales. Hence, the book results, as declared by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ld AO in para no. 5.3 of his order that Mr. Abdul Bari filed his written letter that the figures mentioned in above mentioned letter were merely estimated one compiled during his employment so that the selling price could be worked out. He was never meant that the company has done that much of sales and he has claimed the inventive on the estimated sales after leaving his job. Ld. AO did not even bother to call Mr. Abdul Bari to record his statement and to substantiate his action. His address and all details were furnished. 11. The sale amount of Meerut project was taken from the letter of an aggrieved employee who made unrealistic and arbitrary claims against the appellant company. There was no base of calculation of profit from nominal booking amounts when no construction was carried on and the saleable asset was not even existing. There was no certainty for buying the property in Mall. The details of year wise all investments in projects were submitted and none of them was at all objected. The year wise detail of booking money and work in progress is being submitted as under: MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccepted the total amount of bookings received from investors at Rs. 70,29,78,378/-and the value of land and the expenses incurred on the project. It is very pertinent to mention that the prof its can only be earned when the product is in saleable condition. The profits have been adopted as per the letter of Mr. Bari and those from calculation sheets for determining the sale price of flats mentioning the years 2007 and 2008, it means for the year under appeal as per Ld AO, the prof it was earned without selling the product that was shops or flats in case of the appellant. When till 2009, the appellant could not receive the amounts adopted by Ld AO as sale, how the prof its can be earned even in 2005 when the land for Meerut project was further purchased and the construction work could be started. all the facts and figures as per books of accounts were accepted but for the purpose of sale and profits the letter of Mr. Bari and budgetary/estimates were relied upon as the final evidence by disregarding the entire contents of books of accounts and other bi l ls and vouchers. Besides, the calculation of pro rata prof it for different years has been calculated on the basis of Work In Prog....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i & Co. Pvt Ltd. 230 ITR 580 (SC). SC further held that 'realities of life and probabilities of life have to be taken care of while dealing with the fiscal laws." CIT V. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 358 (SC)." Finding on Ground of Appeal No 5 In Ground of Anneal No.5 the appellant has contested the calculation of consolidated prof it at Rs. 15,02,88,986/- from Meerut project (Rs. 35,64,000/-) and Jaipur Project (Rs. 14,67,24,986/-) made by the AO on basis of estimates and targets. On going through the AO's finding on the issue it is seen that the estimation of income from Meerut & Jaipur project has it's origin in Annexure -2 seized by the search party SOV-6A & SOB-6. Reference has been made to a seized letter dated 03.01.08 of Sh. Abdul Bari address to Sh. Rajat Gupta the Chairman of the appellant company which is on the subject of "Full and Final Settlement of Account on registration from employment". While this letter is dated January, 03, 2008 but since in the Reference portion of the letter "Personal Meeting with Mr. Anurag Gupta, M.D. on 29.12.08" has been mentioned as also the fact that elsewhere in this letter reference to emails and telecoms since Sept. 2008 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he books of accounts of the assessee is to the tune of Rs. 31,91,25,112/-, till the date of search i.e. 26.02.09. The AO has however estimated the net prof it during AY 2004-05 to AY 2009-10 @ 12% on the total sales of this Mall project that is Rs. 60 Crores, (based on the above letter of Sh. Abdul Bari), considering the fact that the concerned project is a commercial one. This has been worked out for a total amount of Rs. 7.2 Crores between the above assessment years. The same has been distributed in these years in the ratio of booking amount received between AY 2004-05 to 2009- 10. In para 5.6 the AO has also recorded that as the assessee has suppressed his sales hence the book result declared by the assessee are rejected under provisions of section 145(3) of the IT Act. As against the above finding of the AO the appellant' s submission is that the whole working of income on Meerut Project has originated on basis of the letter written by Sh. Abdul Bari, upon leaving the job. That the AO has taken a imaginary cognizance of this letter without any evidence even when only the land at Meerut is purchased during the year and no construction was carried on for the Meerut proje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It has been argued that the prof its can only be earned when the product is in saleable condition. The prof its have been adopted as per the letter of Mr. Bari and those from calculation sheets for determining the sale price of flats mentioning the years 2007 and 2008, it means for the year under appeal as per AO, the prof it was earned without selling the product that was shops or flats in case of the appellant. That all the facts and figures as per books of accounts were accepted by the A.O. but for the purpose of sale and prof its the letter of Mr. Bari and budgetary/estimates were relied upon as the final evidence by disregarding the entire contents of books of accounts and other bi l ls and vouchers. Besides, the calculation of pro rata prof it for different years has been calculated on the basis of Work In Progress. The above mentioned chart clearly mentions that the initial years' investment in Jaipur Project is nothing but the purchase of land and no work was done. 'The inference should be drawn on totality of the circumstances as held in CIT Vs Naresh Khattar (HUF) 261 ITR 664 (Delhi). Again referring to the accounting standards that is AS-7 issued by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7.20 Crores on the booking accounted for in the books of accounts at Rs. 31.97 Crores results in the net prof it rate of 22.52% which obviously is not the same as estimated by the AO himself. In view of the above fact the distribution of estimated unaccounted prof it made by the AO in the booking amount ratio for the years also becomes fallacious and arbitrary. From the copy of balance sheet fi led by the appellant for AY 2005-06, it is apparently seen that uptill the year ending on 31.03.05 total booking amount received for Meerut project is for Rs. 2,39,19,334/- and total investment on account of land purchase and other expenses for Meerut project as on 31.03.2005 is Rs. 9,26,85,998/-. From the year wise investment in land & construction in Meerut project it is seen that the total of these expenses till AY 2009-10 is for Rs. 65,34,63,503/-. Thus as uptill 31.03.05 only 14.18% of the total cost has been incurred and booking amount for only Rs. 2.39 Crores have been received therefore accrual of income from the project cannot be computed in terms of AS-7. It is seen from the order that the AO has rejected the book results and the provisions of se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 13.84 Crores an amount of Rs. 13.82 Crores is on account of land purchase and there is other expense for Rs. 1.66 Lacs. Therefore when only investment in land has been made during the year there can be no case for loading an income of Rs. 14.67 Crores merely upon purchase of land. It is seen from the order that the AO has rejected the book results and the provisions of section 145(3) of the IT Act have been invoked. However, there is no discussion in the order as to on what specific ground the AO is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee neither there is any reference as to non following of the method of accounting regularly followed by the assessee or violating the Accounting Standards as notified under sub section (2) of section 145 of the Act. Keeping in view the above discussion in totality and entirety it is held that the addition made for Rs. 14,67,24,986/- as additional prof it from Jaipur project is totally based on conjecture and surmise and is therefore directed to be deleted." 7. Before us, during the arguments, the ld. DR strongly relied on the order of the Assessing Officer whereas the ld. AR supporte....