TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 676
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Noida, U.P. The search was conducted on the premises of the assessee on 18.10.2011 during which no incriminating material, unexplained cash or unexplained jewellery was found. 5. In Assessment Year 2011-12, based on certain website launched by one of the property brokers wherein the said broker had shown the launched price at Rs. 9,500/- per sq foot irrespective of the floor size and location of the area. In the books of account for the Assessment Year 2011-12, the assessee stated that majority of the area was sold at Rs. 6,500/- per sq foot, but certain area was sold at Rs. 9,000/- per sq foot through one broker Mr. Naresh Grover of Nagpur and the difference in amount was paid to the said Mr. Naresh Grover. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer enquired from various persons who had booked the unit in the tower and almost all the persons had confirmed the price at which it was recorded in the books of account. The confirmation from Mr. Naresh Grover was also filed. 6. However, while framing the assessment for Assessment Year 2011-12, the Assessing Officer, in spite of such information available on record, proceeded to frame the assessment, thereby a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al sale consideration of Rs. 2,06,23,38,850/-. After giving credit to the sale already declared by assessee, the AO made addition of Rs. 54,80,94,533/- being the difference. We find the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition basically on the following grounds:- (i) The year under appeal is the first year of operation of the company as it is incorporated on 13th April 2010. (ii) In the search account, which took place on 18th October 2011, no cash, valuables or any kind of unexplained investment appear to have been found for the year under consideration. (iii) During the course of post search proceedings, all the buyers from whom the enquiries were made have confirmed to have given the amount as duly recorded in the books of the appellant. (iv) The contention of the AO stating that the buyers did not admit to have made such payment in cash as it is beneficial to both the parties have no basis. (v) As far as the veracity of rate quoted in the alleged website of the appellant, the appellant denied to have owned the same and was not in the knowledge of the appellant. In the website, the rate has been given at Rs. 9,500/- per square foot for that project of the appellant. However....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rived by the appellant is within the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- per square foot which is also more than the prevailing circle rate and all the transactions have been made above the circle rates. (xi) As far as seized documents are concerned, it cannot be concluded that any "on money" has been received by the assessee coupled with the fact that no corroborative evidence either at the time of search or later on was brought on record to show that the cash has been transacted. (xii) No action has been taken by the AO/Department in hands of the buyers/investors who allege to have paid unaccounted cash towards "on money". 18.1. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue of deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. It is an admitted fact that this is the first year of the operation of the company and during the course of search no cogent or corroborative evidence was found to substantiate the receipt of "on money" from any of the buyers. Further, no cash, jewellery or other valuables or investment was found. We, therefore, find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee that had such huge amount been received ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." paid by any of the investor. 20. So far as page No.10 of Annexure A-24 found and seized from C-1, Sector 16, Noida having cash receipt of Rs. 86,70,816/- for booking of Unit No.617 and 618 is concerned, we find the assessee has already demonstrated that these are two independent units sold to two different persons and in fact the assessee has sold the above two flats @ Rs. 6000/- per sq. ft. Whereas the average price of the two flats comes to Rs. 5000/- per sq. ft. We, therefore, find merit in the argument of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the same cannot be the basis for making huge addition by adopting the rate of Rs. 8,075/- per sq. ft. 21. We also find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee that as per the guidance note issued by the ICAI in AS-9, income has to be shown on percentage completion method if the assessee company has sold at least 25% of the total salable area or had received 10% of the total realisable value of the project. Since, the Assessing Officer in the instant case has himself noticed that the assessee has booked less than 25% of the area during the year (booking of 295000 sq. ft. out of 17,38,000 sq. ft.) and has not real....