AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 1115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 20.04.2023 for assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-14, a copy of which has been placed on record. Assessment year 2006-07(Revenue's Appeal) 3. In order to appreciate the controversy and the relevant facts, we first take up the Appeal of the Revenue which is against the order of the CIT(A) dated 29.11.2016 for the Assessment Year 2006-07 wherein, the solitary issue relates to an addition of Rs. 5,75,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted interest, which has since been deleted by the CIT(A). Hence, the appeal of the Revenue before us. 3.1 Briefly put, the relevant facts are that a search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Act as well as Survey action under section 133A of the Act was carried out in the premises of one Vatika Group of Cases on 16.01.2013 wherein certain incriminating documents were found and seized. Notably, on a prior date in 2011 search and seizure as also survey actions were also carried out by the Department in the premises of a Group styled 'Sh. KS Dhingra, GS Dhingra & others' and / or UK Paints Group, wherein also certain documents were seized / impounded. The Assessee before us is a concern belonging to the group known....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....parate agreements. Even the dates of agreements are different. It would be useful to consider the terms of the agreement between the appellant and Vatika, as it is the terms of the agreement entered into between two parties that would primarily throw light on the actual nature of the transaction intended between them, and then to see whether the seized material/statements relied upon by the A.O. provide a view in line with the conclusion of the A.O. 4.2.1.5 In the appellant's case, it is seen that it entered into an agreement with Vatika on 11.06.2005, called "Memorandum of Understanding". This agreement involves the appellant and the Vatika group, and makes no reference to any other party of either Span group, Shahi group of U.K. Paints group. Even the date of the agreement is different from the dates of agreements entered into by the other parties with Vatika. The key features of this agreement are as follows : (i) It is entered into between Vatika as the "Seller", the appellant as the "Buyer" and Sanskar Buildtech P. Ltd & Nakshatra Properties P. Ltd as "Confirming Parties". The "Confirming Parties" (which are wholly owned by the Vatika Group) are owners of certain tract....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ally, Vatika has offered 25.596 bighas to secure Rs. 15,00,00,000/-; (xii) Possession of plots would be handed over upon completion of development, latest by 31.3.2006 (xiii) In the event of Vatika failing to carry out the development of these plots the entire sum of Rs. 15 crores plus 25% interest till date of re-payment would be payable to the appellant. 4.2.1.6 Subsequently, on 5.06.2007, on the request of Vatika, all the parties to the MOU dated 11.06.2005 entered into an "MOU extending the date of re- purchase", wherein the last date of re-purchase date was changed to 10.06.2009. If Vatika were to repurchase the plots at any time on or before 10.06.2009, the revised rate payable was agreed @ Rs. 9,250/- p. sqyd. A new provision was inserted i.e., the appellant had the liberty to sell the plots to any outside party even before 10.06.2009. All other terms and conditions remained unchanged. The sale of the plots to the appellant was additionally confirmed by Vatika and well as the owners of the land. The exact plots which were subject matter of the agreement were identified in this schedule to this extension MOU. Subsequently, vide an agreement dated 11.06.2009, on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elp us in deciphering the nature of this agreement. To determine the real meaning of the contract and to ascertain the intention of the parties thereto, we must fall back on judicially settled principles of interpretation of contracts between parties. Interpretation can be analysed from the perspective of four principles which can usefully be applied to the construction of a contract. These principles are (i) Giving effect to the intention of the parties as found in the words they use; (ii) Repugnancy of an exclusion clause; (iii) The Contra Proferentem Rule; and (iv) Standard form and exclusion clauses. The last three principles deal with exclusionary clauses of a contract, and are not relevant for our purposes in the case under discussion. It is now settled law that in construing the intention of the parties from the contents of a contractual document between them, the entirety of the contract must be construed and an effort must be made to harmonize the individual parts into the whole. The dichotomy therefore can be resolved only through a complete harmonious reading of the agreement in a manner which does not render any part of the agreement as invalid or would lead to an absur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant and Vatika was actually a loan transaction. The evidence relied upon by the A.O. are individually discussed below. 4.2.1.11 The fact that UK Paints group, in an internal email communication ( extracted from seized hard disk A8 from the U.K. Paints group), has grouped an amount (Rs. 43,00,00,000/-) given to Vatika as an "ICD", cannot be held against the appellant, especially when it does not detract from language of the agreement between the appellant and Vatika, nor does it mention any rate of interest on such an "ICD" or even interest received/receivable. On the other hand, the document extracted from the seized hard disk A-66 from Vatika premises, which is a detailed chart of agreements entered into by Vatika with the appellant, SEH Realtors P. Ltd, UK Paints India P Ltd and Uttam Enterprises P. Ltd., shows that the parties are Purchasers/Lenders., and depict the agreement thereon as a sale agreement. There is no indication of any interest @25% payable on the consideration, except "if refundable". Clearly, the transaction is a sale transaction, and would be subject to a penal interest @ 25% as the fall-back option, in case the primary transaction of sale does not go ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t (seized as Annexure A-12, page 79 from Vatika premises) being a note dated 28.10.2010 prepared by Sh. Manmohan Mehra of Vatika group for the perusal of Sh. Gautam Bhalla, Director named "Jaipur Plots buy back Deal", shows that the note relates to the buy-back deal between Vatika group and the lenders group; as per the note, ESPO Developers Pvt. Ltd. has been introduced into the transaction to perform the obligations of Vatika to buy back the plots. This too does not contradict the appellant's claim 4.2.1.14 I have also gone through the statements of Sh. Navin Choudhary,CFO of Vatika group and Sh. Harish Ahuja, MD of the Shahi group relied upon by the A.O. (and reproduced in the assessment order). I am of the considered opinion that that none of these depositions too support the view that the transaction was actually an interest-bearing loan transaction, and not a transaction of sale ( with a provision for buy-back). There is neither any admission therein, nor even any indication that it is so, insofar as it relates to the transaction between Vatika and the appellant. 4.2.1.15 It would also be seen that the agreement dated 11.6.2005 and subsequent extension agreements have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s held that the word "property" used in Sec 2(14) is a word of the widest amplitude and any right which can be called property will be included in the definition of capital asset. It held that since a contract for sale of land is capable of specific performance and is also assignable, a right to obtain conveyance of immovable property is also clearly a capital asset contemplated u/s 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. The word "transfer" in Sec 2(47) has also been defined to not only include a regular sale, but also any transaction that results in any extinguishment of any right in the property or any relinquishment of the same. Thus, the definition takes into its ambit not only cases where a person gives up his rights in the property voluntarily but also instances where he gives up his rights in favour of another person in consideration of the other person fulfilling his part of the obligations as per the contracted terms. In the present case, while the property in question has not been registered in the name of the appellant, it has entered into an agreement with the seller and as a consequence had absolute rights of disposal over them, and its rights were vested to the exclusion of all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., at the option of the appellant, was agreed to done to Vatika or its nominee. Ultimately, the property was sold to a Vatika nominee. Even otherwise, as per the terms of the agreement, the appellant was under no compulsion to sell the plots to either Vatika or any other party of the Vatika group, or even to a nominee of Vatika. The Vatika group was under a contractual obligation to purchase back the plots, but only at the option of the appellant, within a period of two years from the date of the agreement, at the prevailing market rates. The Vatika group did not have any vested rights to get the properties back from the appellant. On the other hand, the appellant was free to sell the lands in the open market, and the fact that the appellant sold the properties/its rights thereon to a Vatika group company, is of no other consequence. If it were a loan transaction only, then Vatika would not have agreed to such a provision. In the agreement, allowing the appellant the rights to sell to any buyer of the appellant's choice. 4.2.1.19 I am therefore of the view, that the conclusion drawn by the A.O. in the appellant's case is erroneous. I hold that the appellant is liable for l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....location charges. * The assessee has the exclusive rights of development of these properties. * Corporate guarantee agreements have also been entered into between parties. The Seller offered collateral security of immovable property which is distinct from the property which was the subject matter of the agreement. * Construing the intention of the parties from the contents of a contractual document between the, the entirety of the contract must be construed and an effort must be made to harmonize the individual parts into the whole. * A harmonious reading of the agreements reveal that the intention was to purchase the plots but not loans as same from thevary first agreement and the accounting treatment also proves the same. * None of the evidences referred to by the A.O. either individually or collectively, can be said to indicate that the specific transaction between the buyer and the assessee was actually a loan transaction. 38. Aggrieved with the deletion made by the purported unaccounted interest payment in the case of Jaipur Project, the revenue filed appeal before us. Similarly, in the case of NH8 Project, the revenue filed appeal against the deletion of the unacc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t dated 31.03.2006 where the borrower was given option to purchase of residential plot. Various such agreements are detailed as under:- Lender Borrower Date of the agreement Page No. Annexure No. Seized from Sohan Singh Dhingra Vatika Landbase Pvt. Ltd. 31.03.2006 125 to 116 A41 Vatika Triangle Sushant Lok-1, M.G. Road, Gurgaon U.K. Paints India Pvt. Ltd. Vatika Landbase Pvt. Ltd. Buzz Estates Pvt. Ltd. 31.03.2006 (1) 107 to 99 (2) 158 to 149 (3) 48 to 10 (1) A41 (2) A43 (3) A4 (1 & 2) Vatika Triangle Sushant Lok-1, M.G. Road, Gurgaon (3) 19 DDA commercial complex, zamrudpur, Kailash Colony, New Delhi Heminder Kumari Vatika Landbase Pvt. Ltd., Wonder Developers Pvt. Ltd. 31.03.2006 55 to 46 A41 Vatika Triangle Sushant Lok-1, M.G. Road, Gurgaon Span India Pvt. Ltd. Vatika Landbase Pvt. Ltd., Buzz Estates Pvt. Ltd. 31.03.2006 35 to 30 A41 Vatika Triangle Sushant Lok-1, M.G. Road, Gurgaon v. The lender and Borrower group concern entered into again guarantee agreement to secure right of lenders and obligations of the borrower assumed in amendatory loan cum purchase agreement. Such agreements are detailed as under:- Lender Borro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Singh (HUF) Vatika Ltd. and Wonder Developers Pvt. Ltd. as confirming party 30.06.2007 115 to 112 A41 Vatika Triangle, Sushant Lok-1, M.G.Road, Gurgaon U.K. Paints India Pvt. Ltd. Vatika Ltd. Buzz Estates Pvt. Ltd. as confirming party 30.06.2007 80 to 77 A41 Vatika Triangle, Sushant Lok-1, M.G.Road, Gurgaon Span India Pvt. Ltd. Vatika Ltd. Buzz Estates Pvt. Ltd. as confirming party 29.06.2007 17 to 14 A41 Vatika Triangle, Sushant Lok-1, M.G.Road, Gurgaon The following were some of the features of this extension agreement/MOU: Lender Extended period of loan and the right of the lender group concern to exercise the option of purchasing the land, upto Extended period of the right o the lender group concern to re land so purchased to the seller group) sell the (borrower group) SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. 31.12.2007 31.12.2008 Sohan Singh Dhingra (HUF) 31.12.2007 31.12.2008 U.K. Paints India Pvt. Ltd. 31.12.2007 31.12.2008 Span India Pvt. Ltd. 31.12.2007 31.12.2008 Similar extension agreements between Lenders group members and Borrowers was found were found in physical form or in hard drive during the Search action conducted o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... VatikaLtd. 28.04.2011 25,00,000 SohanSingh Lincoln 01.04.2011 15,00,000 VatikaLtd. 28.04.2011 5,00,000 SohanSingh Lincoln 31.05.2011 1,00,00,000 UKPI Lincoln 31.05.2011 1,10,00,000 VatikaLtd. 02.06.2011 1,50,00,000 SohanSingh Lincoln 02.06.2011 1,50,00,000 VatikaLtd. 06.06.2011 1,00,00,000 SpanIndia Lincoln 06.06.2011 1,00,00,000 08.06.2011 1,00,00,000 SpanIndia Lincoln 08.06.2011 1,00,00,000 VatikaLtd. 10.06.2011 1,00,00,000 SpanIndia Lincoln 10.06.2011 1,00,00,000 14.06.2011 1,00,00,000 SpanIndia Lincoln 14.06.2011 1,00,00,000 15.06.2011 1,00,00,000 SpanIndia Lincoln 15.06.2011 1,00,00,000 Total 62,72,96,000 69,93,36,000 AO concluded on the basis of these documents in page 16 & 17 of assessment order A.Y. 2007-08 that Vatika Group has camouflaged the agreement as sale and purchase agreement which was basically a loan agreement. Similar findings is given by the AO in various assessment years that the assessee has camouflaged the loan transactions into sale and purchase transactions. The assessee has paid unaccounted payment of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eement with advancing of money to the assessee initially as loan agreement except SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. where initial agreement is Loan cum Purchase agreement. In all other cases the initial lenders have entered into loan agreement and subsequently loan agreement was changed to loan cum purchase agreement. However, in all cases material facts has remained same i.e. the advances are fully backed up by security agreement, guarantee agreement and obtaining PDCs at different times of extension of agreement. For the sake of brevity following security for amount advanced were received by the lenders:- 1. Collateral Security inform of immovable properties of M/s Vatika Group was offered vide guarantee agreement. 2. Personal guarantee of Sh. Anil Bhalla promotes of the company was offered by personal guarantee agreement. In the event of failure of payment of loan guarantor agrees for the repayment of loan and interest. 3. PDCs was given for the principal and interest. 4. There was provision of compulsory buy back by lender at the option of investor. In view of the above securities the advance given is fully secured not in terms of guarantee of immovable properties & personal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accepting buy back value less than principal and interest at buy back proves the assessee has paid unaccounted interest and therefore such expenditure has incurred and section 69C can be invoked. Ld. ARs argument that Ld. CIT(A) has enhanced the interest for A.Y. 2011-12 without any basis is also not tenable as CIT(A) has held that all interest was paid at the time of buy back when all the liability of assessee got discharged towards the lender. Ld. ARs contention that CIT(A) has enhanced the unaccounted interest payment without quantifying the amount in enhancement notice has been dealt by Ld. CIT(A) that in enhancement notice, the principals of enhancement has been given namely total interest payable from date of advance of loan by lenders was paid at the time of buy back. From there exact amount of interest can be computed. Another contention of Ld. AR's that there is no incriminating document found from A's premise therefore, for unabated assessment no addition can be made u/s 153A. Ld. CIT(A) conclude in Para 4.4.1.18 that the seized loan agreement constitute the primary evidence on the basis of which the addition emanates. This holds goods for all agreements for NH- 8 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....other with SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. 1. In both the cases the amount of principle with interest is guaranteed by a guarantee agreement where immovable property of a group concern is offered as guarantee which can be utilised for securing interest plus Principals in case of default by leaders. 2. In both cases the personal guarantee has been offered the personal guarantee agreement by sh. Bhalla being promoter of the M/s Vatika Ltd. 3. In both Cases PDCs (Post dated Cheque) were given by M/s Vatika Ltd. cover principals & interest. 4. In both cases, there was option to purchase the plots of M/s Vatika Ltd. by lenders & lenders have acquired the plots but registration was done. 5. In both the Cases, there was provision of Compulsory purchase by borrower i.e. M/s Vatika Ltd. at the option of lenders. 6. Buy back price is at much lesser rate than principal plus interest. Mostly buy back price at the principal only. When the amount advanced alongwith interest in covered by So many guarantees as discussed above, why buy back prices was less then principals & interest without any dispute? This action of lenders & borrower cannot be explained by the principle of human probabil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....houdhary, CFO of U.K. Paints Ltd has accepted that the dairy is in his hand writing but gave evasive reply by saying that "I don't recall". He subsequently stated that 'M' stands for material supplied by U.K. Paint to Vatika Ltd.& finally answer to question no 60 & 61 of statement to recorded during Simultaneously Search in Dhingra / U. K. Paint group, Sh. Naveen. Choudhary on 16.01.2013 on confronting the documents accepted that "M / Material" stands for Calculation of delayed interest on principal amount. These statements reproduced in the assessment order. Therefore 'M' is accepted as interest calculation written in the seized documents. Further during the search proceeding on 16.01.2013 at the residence of Sh. Naveen Choudhary, CFO of U. K. Paints group of these Jottings specially when 'M / Material' has been used in the documents Seized on 16-9-2011 Sh. Naveen Choudhary has sent brief for the opinion for making disclosure to Sh. C.S. Agarwal (Annexure A-6 from hard disc of laptop of Sh. Naveen Choudhary). Sh. C.S. Agrawal has advised U. K. Paints group (K.S. Dhingra / G. S. Dhingra) to Surrender the cash loan of 2.75 crores & interest Coded as material in Sei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly searched on 16.01.2013 evidence for making the addition of unaccounted interest on ICD was found or not. During the present search .evidence in form of emails & texts were found from the computer of Sh. Naveen Choudhary, CFO of U. K. Paint group inform of emails to Sh. C. S. Agarwal for opinion, opinion given by Sh. C. S. Agarwal on the entries on seized. Annerure AA- 1 & AA2 & finally a draft written statement of Sh. S. K. Dhingra , MD of U. K. Paints group for surrendering the amount of Rs. 7,95,45,530/- on the basis seized document AA-I & AA-2 from earlier search. Therefore, in present search also incriminating evidences in form of subsequent correspondences on the basis of earlier Seized comments. AA 1 & AA-2 of U. K Paints group seized 24.11.2011 was found. Therefore in present search also, evidences in form of incriminating materials was found. Hence earlier seized documents AA-1 AA-2 Corroborates the unaccounted interest Payment on ICDs. CIT(A) has given same funding in para 4.6.16 of this order. In view of the above, since the addition of unaccounted interest on ICDs emanates from Seized documents of present Search i.e. 16.01.2013 and seized documents AA-I & AA-2 of ea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n analyzed by the assessing officer Ld. CIT(A) in details in the assessment order. The contents of various pages in annexure AA-1 & AA-2 clearly indicate that against the word used 'material', there in calculation of interest as principal is multiplied by period and interest rate which comes interest rate of 36% as deciphered by Ld. AO and CIT(A). Further where the content of these papers was confronted to the written of the paper Sh. Naveen Choudhary has given evasive reply and wrong statement that it pertains to goods transacted when there was no goods transacted between UK Paints and vatika & other borrower. Ultimately Sh. Naveen Choudhary accepted that calculation against the words 'Material/M'is related the interest calculation for delayed interest/payment. The contents of Seized material is self-speaking and is nothing but interest calculation payable on ICD. iii. The next arguments of Id. AR is that the documents relied by the assessing officer was never confronted to the assessee and persons whose statement has been relied was never allowed cross examination. In this regard it submitted that the content of seized documents relied was confronted to the assessee and scanned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been made to all members of U.K. Paints group, Shahi group & Span Group. Accordingly it is prayed that unaccounted interest paid to all lenders as per assessment order, should be upheld. V. Revenue Appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 Deletion of addition on account of (GND No. 9 & 10) Cash receipt Rs. 45 crores. Facts of the case:- Vatika group and Shahi group, span Group & Dhingra Group entered into deal in F.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 where vatika group has agreed to sale land at sector 84 & 85 of Gurgaon land vide agreement to sale with Shahi group, span group & Dhingra Group. The details of such agreement is as under:- 'Buyer'/Group Total 'sales' Consideration (Amount Rs. ) Rate per sq. Yards (Amount Rs. ) Total area (sq. Yards) under 'sale' Scorpio Research & Consultants Pvt. Ltd./Dhingra Group 35,00,00,000/- 8140/- 43000 H.A. Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (Shahi Exports group) 35,00,00,000/- 8140/- 43000 Positive Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (Span India group) 35,00,00,000/- 8140/- 43000 During search operation various mails were recovered from hard disc Annexure A-66 from 'Vatika Triangle" Shushant Lok-1 M.G. Road Gurgaon in respect of this transfer of lan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich matches with the agreements to sale. Further this attachment contains the Shahi funding, U.K. Paints funding & Span group funding reproduced in the assessment order (page 68 & 69). Still further the area sold for each group is 37556 sq. Yard & actual agreement to sale is for 40000 sq. Yard which almost matches. 5. In the attachment to mail dated 13.01.2010 total balance payment to be made in different group are as under: - Shahi Group-Rs. 33,33,31,900/- UK Paints Group Rs. 33,33,54,300/- SPAN group Rs. 30,33,29,708/-. If we add 'A' as accounted from already paid in the group, total sale consideration comes to SHAHI Group Rs. 34,83,31,900/- (Rs.1,50,00,000/- +Rs.33,33,31,900/-) 'A' fund given already UK Paint Group Rs. 36,33,54,300/- (Rs.3,00,00,000/- +Rs.33,33,54,300/-) 'A' fund given already SPAN Group Rs. 31,33,29,708/-(Rs. 10000000/- +Rs.30,33,29,708/-) Accounted fund given already (AO page No. 67& 68) The above figure almost matches with sale consideration shown in the agreement for sale which is Rs. 35 crore in each group. In view if the above the data contained in these mails matches with agreement to sale entered by the parties. Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that Rs. 3 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zed material pertaining to U.K. Paints India Pvt. Ltd. and the agreements thereof, the agreements with Sohan Singh Dhingra, Heminder Kumari, Span India Pvt. Ltd. and also SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. He has argued based on the fund flow showing that the fund used in repurchase of the property from the lender in the name of M/s Lincoln Developers Pvt. Ltd. is the fund of M/s Vatika Ltd. The table has been shown at page no. 6/7 of the written submission of the ld. DR which is reproduced above. The ld. DR has also argued based on the initial agreements, advancing the money, subsequent agreements, loan-cum-purchase agreement, collateral securities, personal guarantees and the PDCs. The ld. DR has also emphasized on the compulsory buy-back from the lender at the option of the investor lender parties. The ld. DR's main argument was that in view of the securities, the advance given is fully secured and it can never be treated as a purchase transaction. 41. The ld. DR argued that the unaccounted interest payment had no bearing in the recorded transaction. It was argued that if the transaction is held to be a loan transaction and unaccounted interest payment is upheld, to the extent of change i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or AY 2006-07 to A.Y. 2011-12 in respect of the Jaipur deal was deleted. With regard to Jaipur Deal, the ld. CIT(A) held that the parties executed documents of agreement to sale in respect of certain properties owned by Vatika at Jaipur. As per these agreements, a specific right was granted to the buyers that the plots, which were subject matter of the sale agreement, may be sold back by them to Vatika at a pre-determined sale consideration and additional payments of Rs. 1,87,77,000/- was made by these parties for preferential plots allotted.The terms of the existing agreement between the parties prove that the transactions were for purchase of plots and not a financial transaction in the nature of loan. It was held that the agreements for sale have been entered by these parties with Vatika the "seller", on various dates in the month of May and June, 2005. Sanskar Buildtech P. Ltd. and Nakshatra Buildcon P. Ltd., who are the owners of the property, were the "confirming parties" to these agreements. It was a fact on record that the parties made full and complete payments of the cost of the plots including preferential location charges. We agree with the observation of the ld. CIT(A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... option to the lender to opt for purchase of plots. It was held that this clause only provide an option to purchase at future date, and same by itself does not convert the loan agreement to purchase agreement. It was held that subsequent extension agreements only change the date of tenure of loan and the amounts of PDCs, and all other conditions of the amendatory agreement continues in the extension agreement. It was held by the learned CIT(A) that it is only in the AY 2011-12 i.e. upon the exercise of the option to purchase the space, and allotment of plot thereafter, the loan agreement got converted into purchase agreement and till the exercise of the option, nature of agreement continued as a loan transaction till the AY 2010-11. Such findings of ld. CIT(A) are not correct on facts as he has failed to appreciate that loan agreement was subsequently modified as "Amendatory Loan cum Purchase Agreement", under which the vendees had opted to convert the loan as purchase consideration for the purchase of plot of land which tenure was extended from time to time and plot of aforesaid land was indeed allotted to the lenders in AY 2011-12. 46. All the lender parties were allotted the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s noevidence, even, to suggest that the lenders have actually received any interest. Under these circumstances, the contention of the revenue that the assessee has paid the entire accrued interest till the date of allotment of the plots to the lenders, as agreed, but outside its books in cash is nothing but a figment imagination and based on mere suspicion and surmises. 48. Academically,if the statement of the revenue, that the assessee has paid unaccounted interest to the lender parties is considered as correct, in the backdrop of the fact that the principal amount received is accounted by the assessee as well as by the loan parties, the payment of interest from the books would be advantageous to the assessee to reduce their taxable income and hence we are not in a considered situation to accept the presumption of the revenue. 49. Further, we find that the agreements themselves show that the interest was not actually paid upto 27.08.2010 but accumulated and hence the question of payment of interest annually and disallowance of such interest by the revenue doesn't arise. And since the space was allotted by the assessee to these parties even the purported accumulated interest ca....