TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 926
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ief facts of the case is that the assessee company was incorporated on 01-04-2010 and engaged in the business of developing of residential plots. The assessee has floated a scheme "Anand Dreams" at Pethapur-Mehudi Highway, Gandhinagar, Gujarat consisting of total 358 plots in phase I ranging from 500 to 1398 sq.yards and in Phase-II consisting of 397 plots ranging from 150 to 300 sq.yards. There was a search action u/s. 132 of the Act on 13-06-2013 in the business premises of the group concerns at Sahibaug, Ahmedabad wherein various computers and pen-drive were seized. The printout of the data found in computer and pen-drive were inventorised as File Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and statement of the Director Shri Vijaynarayan R. Jaju was recorded and he was specifically asked to explain Page No. 44 & 45 of File No. 1 of Hard Disk Annexure-A dated 13-06-2013. 2.1. In reply Question No. 54, the Director replied the pages on 44 & 45 are percentage of commission on the amount mentioned on these pages, he admitted that this is simply working of commission and he had worked the interest on the said amount. On being asked about the parties name mentioned in these pages, the assessee submitted that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edings. 3. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and no one represented before First Appellate Authority, therefore the same was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A). 4. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before this Tribunal in IT(SS)A Nos. 403 to 405/Ahd/2017 and ITA No. 2226/Ahd/2017 for the Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 20-12-2017 set aside the assessment with a direction to the assessee to furnish necessary details and substantiate its claim before the Assessing Officer by observing as follows: "....8. We have carefully perused the assessment orders in the case of Shreem Developers which are exhibited at pages 2 to 35 of the paper book. The assessment order of Shreem Construction is exhibited at pages 36 to 38. Shreem Builders at pages 39 to 43, Shri Vijaynarayan R. Jaju at pages 44 to 47 and Shri Anand Patel from pages 48 to 50 of the paper book. 9. We find that nobody attended during the assessment proceedings of the assessee nor anybody attended proceedings before the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g set aside proceedings the application of income as per disclosure in the hands of other group concerns and members of the Shreem Group. Hence for want of supporting evidences assessee's claim of telescoping benefits cannot be allowed besides there has been irrefutable and additional incriminating evidence found and seized in the case of the assessee which has also been accepted by the key person Sh. Vijay Jaju of Shreem Group vide statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act. 5.3 It may further be noted that the assessee had given a disclosure of Rs. 16.42 crores based on page No. 44 & 45 of file No. 1 (Scanned copy of page No. 44 & 45 from print out of Hard Disk Annexure A dated 13/06/2013 in its project Anand Dreamz, which Shri Vijay Jaju (partner) vide his reply to Question No. 54 of statement recorded u/s.132(4) on 13.06.2013 had stated that it contains the working of commission and interest receivable. Thereafter vide Question No. 60 he was asked as to whether the amount of Rs. 16,42,51,000/- was recorded in the books or not, he submitted that this is unaccounted income on sale of plot in cash till date, of Shreem Group and the assessee has not entered or shown....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... discussions dismissed the assessee appeal observing as follows: "...5.3 I have gone through the facts of the case, as mentioned in the assessment order, the documents found during the search & statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act. It is clear from the above discussion that 2 pages (No.44 & 45) were found at common office of all group concerns. It has never been stated by Shri Vijaynarayan Jaju that this page contain details of transactions only pertaining to the appellant. Even Shri Jaju made it clear again & again that the total amount of Rs. 16,42,51,000/- written on this page is undisclosed income of all group persons. He submitted bifurcation of undisclosed income showing person wise/year wise before the ITO(Inv) vide letter dated 22.11.2013 and the same was neither been doubted nor any question was raised to the appellant about the said bifurcation. In reply to Q No. 75, while giving statement on oath u/s. 132(4), Shri Jaju made it clear that this amount of Rs. 16,42,51,000/- includes several other unaccounted transactions/receipts/ payments of group persons. Thus, the AO is not justified in accepting the statement of the appellant partially which suits to the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le return in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act, hence, additions of Rs. 1.40 crore as disclosure made by Shri Vijaynarayan Jaju in the hands of the appellant for the year under consideration is confirmed. Remaining Rs 2.40 crore as disclosed for A Y. 2014-15 are being confirmed in that year. This ground of appeal is partly allowed. 5.5 The appellant's contention that the disclosure made was for gross receipts and the same was not net profit, hence, only profit portion may be added, is not found acceptable for the simple reason that the appellant itself has returned total receipt as income for A.Y 2012-13. The other group person i.e. Shreem Developer has also returned total gross receipts as income & paid taxes. Hence, this contention is contradictory of the method adopted by the appellant itself as well as other group persons. Thus, this contention is dismissed. The case laws relied upon by the appellant in this regard are not applicable to this case, as facts are totally different. 7. Aggrieved against the same, the Assessee is in appeal before us in IT(SS)A No. 489/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2013-14 raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. In law, on facts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee are all relating to the developers who are engaged in the construction of flats/building, wherein net profit rate is adopted. Further the landmark judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. President Industries reported in 258 ITR 654, is a case about discrepancies noted in the production of the assessee by the Central Excise Authority on production of man-made fabrics, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that the entire addition is to be made not in respect of the sale consideration, but only in respect of the profit element embedded therein. But the facts in the present case is that the assessee company was incorporated on 01.04.2010 and developed residential 358 plots in Phase-I ranging from 500 to 1398 sq. yds. and 397 plots in Phase-II ranging from 150 to 300 sq.yds. Price of the plots are determined based on the improvements/growth of particular area are based on its infrastructure, development, public utilities, etc. Market value of the land and Jantry value differs from place to place. More unaccounted moneys are utilized on sale and development of lands/plots which are converted from Agricultural to Non- Agricultural purpose. In such case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. (ie. assessee) with other assessees of the group namely Shreem Developers whose disclosure is for AY 10-11 to AY 14-15 while the disclosure in the group concerns and individuals is for AY 13-14 & 14-15, so the unaccounted income of Rs. 16.42 Cr disclosed for transactions in AY 13-14 & AY 14-15 in the case of assessee could not be considered for earlier years of Shreem Developers as the application of disclosure income cannot precede the year of generation of income. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee has neither filed ROI nor paid full taxes as per the disclosure. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee has not furnished any evidence to substantiate the basis of income generation in respect of the disclosure to other concerns of the Shreem Group and the income disclosed as per the chart is in respect of sale of plots in cash whereas for eg: Marwadi Stores is not in the business of real estate, and it can be said that the disclosure in Shreem Soil given by Shri V....