TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 1115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide ITA No. 2686 to 2692/Del/2017 & Others dated 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sactions with Vatika Landbase Pvt. Ltd ("Vatika") by way of separate 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 Parti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ender price of Rs. 5100/- after 2 years or (iii) selling 20% or more of the area after the 2 years period to the outside party (xi) Initially, 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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anding". All subsequent agreements are merely extension agreements of the same, with some extra rights of sale being provided to the appellant. The nomenclature of the agreement itself does not help 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. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed in the preceding paras of this order. To my mind, none of the other evidence referred to by the A.O., either individually or collectively, can be said to indicate that the specific transaction between the 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the true nature of the transaction. Therefore, it is clear that not treating the transaction as a loan transaction by the appellant in its accounts from the very beginning is not an afterthought. 4.2.1.13 Even the document (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 admi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sually signifies every possible interest which a person can possibly hold and enjoy. "Property" may be said to be a bundle of rights of all kinds to a person. In the case of CIT Vs Tata Services Ltd (122 ITR 594), the hon 'ble Bombay High Court has 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 cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed examination, it does not bear support from a detailed reasoning. The property belongs to M/s Sanskar Buildtech P. Ltd and Nakshatra Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vatika Ltd. merely had exclusive rights to develop and sale the property and was never the owner; any sale-back, 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.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. * The parties made full and complete payments of the cost of the plots including preferential 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter of Borrower group) entered simultaneously in a personal guarantee agreement to secure the right of the lender and obligation of the borrower. One of such agreement is detailed as under:-3 Lender Date of the agreement Page No. Annexure No. Seized from U.K. Paints India Pvt. Ltd. 13.09.2005 137 to 133 A43 Vatika Triangle Sushant Lok-1, M.G. Road iv. The lender and Borrower then entered subsequently into an amendatory loan cum purchase agreement 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., ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zed documents during Search conducted at 16.01.2013 page 127, 83, 37 and 19 of annexure A-41 (seized from Vatika Triangle, Sushant Lok, MG Road, Gurgaon) which extended the terms of repayment upto 30.03.2007. viii. Lender and Borrowers concerns entered into another extension agreement which were seized from during the course of Search detailed as under:- Lender Borrower Date of the extension Page No. Annexure No. Seized from SHE Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vatika Ltd. and Wonder Developers Pvt. Ltd. As confirming party agreement 29.06.2007 160 to 157 A41 Vatika Triangle, Sushant Lok-1, M.G.Road, Gurgaon Sohan 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 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the fund of Validate tabulated as under:- Date of receipt Amount Receiving Company Paying Company Lincoln Ultimate Source Date Amount Paying Company 04.02.2011 9,09,12,000 SEH Lincoln 03.02.2011 9,09,12,000 Vatika Ltd. 07.02.2011 9,09,12,000 SEH Lincoln 07.02.2011 9,09,12,000 Vatika Ltd. 09.02.2011 9,09,12,000 SEH Lincoln 09.02.2011 9,09,12,000 VatikaLtd. 14.02.2011 7,50,00,000 UKPI Lincoln 14.02.2011 7,50,00,000 VatikaLtd. 21.02.2011 7,25,00,000 UKPI Lincoln 21.02.2011 7,25,00,000 VatikaLtd. 24.02.2011 7,50,00,000 Span India Lincoln 24.02.2011 10,50,00,000 VatikaLtd. 24.02.2011 3,00,00,000 UKPI Lincoln 08.03.2011 2,40,60,000 Sohan Singh Lincoln 08.03.2011 9,66,00,000 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 So....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me of the assessee on such unaccounted interest in A.Y. 2011-12 after giving Show Cause. Arguments of Ld. AR: Arguments of Ld. AR are summarized as under: 1. There is no evidence of payment of interest by M/s Vatika Ltd. to the lenders of the group, while making the addition. 2. The Department has assessed the transaction as transfer of land transaction and addition added interest too. 3. Such expenditure which is impugned addition has never been recorded. 4. The Assessing Officer has given the finding that assessee has incurred liability of interest expenditure proceeded to invoke Section 69C to make addition. 5. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the entire addition for NH-8 deal for A.Y. 2011-12 without any evidence. 6. For unabated assessment, no addition can be made u/s 153A in absence of incriminating materials found as a result of search. 7. In enhancement notice CIT(A) has not quantified the enhancement notice. My submission on the issue of addition of interest in NH-8 are as under: 1. All lenders have entered into agreement with advancing of money to the assessee initially as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e property, personal guarantee of the promoters and total PDCs of value principal and interest, the buy-back prices were accepted by the lender either at principal value or at much lesser amount compared to the amount due principal plus interest. Such acceptance of lower buy back prices by the lender without any dispute proves the payment of unaccounted interest on principal. Ld. ARs argument that the Assessing Officer has accepted the assessee's contention in assessment year 2011-12 that the transaction is a purchase and sale transaction, therefore, there is contradiction in treating the transaction as loan transaction and payment of interest for same transaction. The revenue's stand is the payment of unaccounted interest which is not reflected and recorded in Books of Accounts. Therefore, unaccounted interest payments has no bearing in recorded transactions. If the transaction is held to be loan transaction and unaccounted interest payable is upheld, to the extent of change in work in progress due to buy back of property, set off can be given from the interest. Ld. ARs argument that the section 69C has been wrongly involved by the Ld. AO is not tenable as from t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1. Date of agreement in case of SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd is different from date of agreement with U.K. Paints and others in the case NH-8 deal. 2. In case of SEH Realtors from the date of entering the agreement there was option to purchase the plots by the lender. In fact from the initial date of agreement, the loan and purchase agreements were simultaneously entered. Therefore, CIT(A) was of the view that these agreements were basically in the nature of purchase agreements where as in other lenders can in NH 8 deals initial agreements was a loan agreements. Accordingly Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of unaccounted interest made by the AO. My Submission against deletion of unaccounted interest in case of SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (Revenue's Appeal): In substance, the agreements between the assessee and U.K Paints & other are similar to agreements entered between the assessee & SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Only change of date of agreements and initial agreement in the case U.K Paints Ltd. & other being loan agreements and loan cum purchase agreement in the case of SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd will not change the basic character of the transaction. Basic Characters of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....EH Realtors P. Ltd. in NH8 deal Discussed Supra. Issue of Interest of ICDs: Facts M/s Vatika Ltd. has received ICD from U. K. Paint Group of Companies SPAN Group & Shahi group of companies interest payments has been made ranging from 11-16% per annum in the books of accounts. During the Course of search proceedings at 1st floor, 19, DDA commercial complex Zamrupin, Kailash Colony Extn., G.K.-I New Delhi in the group Case of U. K. Paints group on 24.11.2011, Various documents agreements & deeds of loan / ICD including the hand written dairy in the handwriting of Sh. Naveen Choudhary was seized from this cabin marked as annexure AA-1 & AA-2 respectively. Contents of various pages of AA-1 & AA-2 has been analyzed by AO and where ever 'M / Material' is written, on such pages has been held as Cash interest paid by M/S Vatika Ltd. AO's finding in supported by interest calculation of interest which comes @ 36% per annum, 15% interest has been disclosed in the books of accounts and balance interest has been paid in cash by M/s Vatika ltd. Content of the seized documents of Page No. 12 of AA1, Page 52 of annexre-AA1, Page 53 of AA1, Page ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ucing the interest paid in the books of accounts. CIT(A) has deleted the addition on unaccounted interest paid other lenders on the basis that in seized documents those investors name is not appearing. Arguments of Id AR before Hon'ble ITAT: Arguments of Ld. AR are broadly summarized as under:- 1. The addition has been made by the AO on the basis of documents Seized from third parties without recording the Satisfaction notes & invoking provisions of Section 153C. 2. The documents relied for making addition namely AA-1, AA-2 from the premises of U.K. paints group are dumb documents. 3. No opportunity to cross examine the person has been given by the AO. Before utilizing the such statement. 4. During the present search, no incriminating documents were seized, therefore, no addition Can be made for non abated assessment u/s 153A relying on the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi in the case of Kabul Chawla. My arguments in support of additions made for unaccounted interest on ICDs Confirmed by (CIT (A) & against the arguments of Ld. AR: 1. Ld. AR has raised the issue of invoking provisions of Section 153C for util....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er hand payer. Like in present case in U.K. Paints group have accepted interest which is the unaccounted income and in vatika Ltd. how it is unaccounted expenditure. Hence, in simultaneous search, concept of third person will not apply because of unity of common business activities of all person's searched together. (ii) If a view is taken that even simultaneous search, section 153C is required to be involved to use documents seized from one person in the hands of other person, then there will be multiplicity of proceedings u/s 153A and 153C. Further, comprehensive view of evidence gathered during search operation u/s 132 cannot be taken if each separate evidence is analyzed for undisclosed income separately, Such interpretation will jeopardies the operation of present search and assessment scheme u/s 153 A & 153C. (iii) I rely on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sh. Vinod Gupta 2018-TIOL-350 (SC) Where Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the use of evidence gathered from one person in the hands of other person in simultaneous search. In view of the above the contention of Ld. AR is not tenable that satisfaction should have been recorded ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla should be interpreted as evidence seized at any premise of either of the parties of transaction. In present case evidence from external parties other than simultaneous search has not been used for making addition. Submission against deletion of unaccounted interest on ICD to other parties (Revenue appeal):- Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the appeal on the issue of unaccounted interest on ICD case of M/s UK Paints Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Wang Investment Pvt. Ltd. but deleted the addition made for the interest paid on ICD in case of other lender of UK Groups, Shahi Group, Span Group. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition in case of other lender for unaccounted interest on ICD on the ground that there is no evidences in case of another lender. Evidence is only for U.K. Paints and Wang Investment (Para 4.6.10 of CIT(A)'s order). Hon'ble CIT(A) has over looked the findings of AO on page 49 for A.Y. 2007-08 which contains the scanned copy of page 81 & 82 of annexure A-13 seized during the search on page 49 & 50 of AO (for AY 2007-08). Scanned copies of page 49 & 50 shows that Sh. Naveen choudhary was in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relied by the Id. AO and held that the contents of mail is in proposal form and does not constitute evidence of payment for the agreement to sale under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A) has given his findings in para 4.8.7, 4.8.8 & 4.8.9 where he has deleted the addition mainly on 3 counts. 1. In the emails the rate of sale for land are different. Therefore, the mails are in proposal form. 2. The figure mentioned in accounted payment in case of Scorpio research & consultant shows entire payment of accounted is 35 crores as per RTGS, as per seized mail there is accounted payment of Rs. 3 crore before 20.001.2010. Therefore, even accounted payment does not match hence email is a proposal only & not in respect of agreement to sale. 3. No statement was recorded u/s 132(4) in respect of these seized paper. My submission on this issue:- 1. Undisputedly M/s Vatika Ltd. has entered into 3 agreements of sale to 3 group companies of Shahi, Dhingra & Span group as tabulated in earlier paragraph of AO's findings. The period of such agreements of sale is Jan. 2010. In case of Scorpio research & consultants Pvt. Ltd. The date of agreements to sal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore, entry in the books of accounts of M/s Vatika Ltd. does not match with agreement to sale. Hence on this basis above, the contents of mail cannot discarded. In view of the above, the contents mentioned in the mail is not estimated figure but have a correlation with actual deal of agreement to sale between Vatika & three groups. Now coming to figure 'B' which has been deciphered by black or unaccounted, there is a coherency in the mail i) In the documents attached with the mail dated 13.01.2010. Total Black/unaccounted fund already given group wise as under: a. SHAHI Group "B" Rs. 1.50 crore b. U.K Paint Group "B" Rs. 3.00 Crore c. SPAN Group "B" Rs. 12.00 crore (Page No. 68 & 69 of AO) ii) In the documents attached the mail dated 20.01.2010. total black/unaccounted fund already given/to be given is as under: a) SHAHI Group B 8.50 Crore B+ - 6.50 crore (to be given) b) . U.K paint funding 'B' - Rs. 7.00 crore B+ - Rs. 8.00 crore(to be given) c) . SPAN funding 'B' - Rs. 12.00 crore B+ - Rs. 3.00 crore(to be given) (Pg No 72 & 73 of AO) Total come....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... therefore such expenditure has indeed been incurred and hence Section 69C can be invoked. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that this interest has been held to be chargeable in the A.Y. 2011-12 by the ld. CIT(A) instead of A.Y. 2006-07. The ld. CIT(A) held that all the interest was paid at the time of buy-back and all the liability of the assessee got discharged towards the lender. 42. The ld. AR argued that the transactions with U.K. Paints Pvt. Ltd., Dhingra Group, Span India Pvt. Ltd. and Heminder Kumari are business transactions and there was no evidence that the assessee made any actual payment, be it A.Y. 2006-07 or 2011-12, in the case of NH8 Project. It was argued that the assessee received advance against the sale both in respect of Jaipur Deal and NH8 deal and that against such advances, the plots of land have been allotted, the same have been reflected in the regular books of accounts and then sold and offered to tax as income on the basis of percentage completion method. It was argued that the revenue has accepted the income so offered by the assessee while framing assessment, thus, accepting that the transactions have been accepted as that of sale.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns as terms of the very first agreement and the accounting treatment given in the books of the parties also proves the same. We affirm the finding of the CIT(A) that 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. 45. With regard to NH8 Deal, the five customers namely, UK Paints Pvt. Ltd., SS Dhingra (HUF), Span India Pvt. Ltd., M/s SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd and Smt. Heminder Kumari have lent monies for purchase of space in NH-8 Gurgaon known as "Vatika India Next", which aggregate to Rs. 25 crores and learned CIT(A) had held that out of the five customers, amount advanced by four customers i.e. other than M/s SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd., was on account of loan till the date of allotment of the plot and the amount advanced by M/s SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. was on account of purchase of space, as such, proportionate interest in respect of sum received as advance of Rs. 10 crores from M/s SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. was deleted. Whereas, the proportionate interest in respect of sum of Rs. 15 crores received from 4 customers/lenders has be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accepting the amount of interest originally agreed to be taken from the assessee. This fact itself shows that the original loan agreements, at this juncture, were effectively converted into an agreement to sell/purchase of plots, and hence accrual of any interest does not arise at all. It is a fact that as per the terms of the Amendatory Loan cum Purchase Agreement, on exercise of the option to purchase the residential plot, the loan agreements and Amendatory Loan cum Purchase Agreement shall be deemed to be an agreement to sell and purchase of the residential plots. Under the loan agreements, Amendatory Loan cum Purchase Agreement and Extension Agreements, PDCs were given to the lender/customer in respect of principal amount and interest amount. However, since the lenders/customers never treated the agreement as loan agreement but always wanted to purchase the plot, as such, PDC's were never encashed. Had it been a case of loan instead of advance then obviously the allottees of the land, instead of taking the delivery of plots would have enchased the PDCs. The PDCs were given only as a security pending allotment so that the amounts are secured. 47. It is an undisputed fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vestors that assessee has paid any unaccounted interest, as there can be none, since the investors were allotted the plot of land as was stipulated in the Amendatory Loan cum Purchase Agreement and Extension Agreements. 50. In the result, we decline to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) pertaining to the interest chargeable in case of SEH Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and unaccounted interest payment on account of Jaipur Project. With regard to NH8 Project, since the plots have been duly allotted as per the modified agreements and in the absence of any material found and seized/impounded suggesting interest payment in cash/unaccounted, we hold that no interest can be taxed on notional basis." 4.1 The aforesaid discussion brings out that our Co-ordinate Bench has affirmed the finding of the CIT(A) to the effect that evidences relied upon by the AO could not be considered to indicate that the property transactions between the Vatika group and the assessee were actually loan transactions. Thus, the Tribunal has upheld the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Authority on account of interest income as being misplaced. In view of the similarity of the....