TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 386
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollowing broad facts are required to be noticed. 3.1 The respondent/assessee is a developer and builder. In the course of its business, it undertook various projects in different cities, and locations in the National Capital Region of Delhi [in short, "NCR Delhi"] 3.2 For this purpose, it entered into various agreements, including an agreement dated 30.06.2006 with a company going by the name Real Gain Estates (P) Ltd. [in short, "Real Gain"]. 4. Real Gain acted as the respondent/assessee's sole and exclusive agent for booking and selling commercial shops and flats, which were the subject matter of construction projects undertaken by the respondent/assessee. For its efforts, Real Gain was to receive brokerage at the rate of 6.5%. 5. Evi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e additions made by the AO. It is against this order that an appeal has been preferred by the appellant/revenue with the Tribunal. 12. The Tribunal, however, affirmed the view taken by the CIT(A). 13. Mr Singh says that the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous for the following reasons: (i) First, the addition was made on the basis of a survey report. (ii) Second, the addition of Rs. 10 crores was predicated on the statement of the directors, i.e., Mr Krishan Kumar and Mr Nitin Rekhan, which was made voluntarily. (iii) Third, the statement of directors was taken on oath. 14. On the other hand, Mr Ruchesh Sinha, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that since the statements were recorded during the course of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount in issue, i.e., Rs. 10 crores which, according to the AO, had remained unexplained. 22. It is also not in dispute that the respondent/assessee was not furnished with a copy of the survey report. This is an aspect which the Tribunal has noted in the impugned order. 23. Concededly, the directors were not confronted with the contents of the survey report. 24. Given this position, the Tribunal, in our view, quite correctly has concluded that since there was no corroborative material available for making addition, the assessment order, qua this aspect, could not be sustained. 25. As observed by the Madras High Court in S. Khader Khan Son's case, there is a qualitative difference between the statement recorded under Section 133A and Sect....