TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 888
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m Sh. Sukhminder Singh. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law, in deleting addition of Rs. 3,57,353/-made by the Assessing Officer in respect of the interest expenditure incurred by the assessee company to Sh. Sukhminder Singh for the relevant AY. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law, in failed to acknowledge that the document impounded from the office premises of the assessee company during the course of survey dated 17.02.2020 is sound documentary evidence. 3. Brief facts of the case as per the written submissions of the Assessee are as under:- a) The assessee is a company engaged in the business of real estate. It filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14, declaring a total income of Rs. 2,06,980/-. Subsequently, a survey was conducted under section 133A of the Income Tax Act on 17.02.2020, during which certain documents were found which to the mind of Assessing Officer were incriminating. Based on the findings of the survey, the Assessing Officer formed the belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and accordingly initiated reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act. b) The ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acre to third party namely M/s. Business Plan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Similarly, the land at Serial No. 3, belonging to Smt. Tej Kaur, Sukhminder's mother measuring 7 Kanal 19 Maria was also sold later on to some third party but to the assessee. iii. No development expenses as mentioned in the estimated cost of project Pushap Vatika was ever paid by the assessee and the AO has also not taken any adverse view regarding this amount. Similarly, no interest was paid to the outsiders as mentioned in the document and on this also, the AO has not taken any adverse view. Thus as per the AR, the AO has also adopted a pick & choose approach. Therefore the arguments of the AR are found acceptable that no addition can be made solely on the basis of figures mentioned in the document 'Estimated Cost of Project Pushap Vatika', whose heading itself suggest that it was just an estimate. Some of the lands mentioned in the document were never purchased by the assessee, hence, it gives support to the fact that this was just an estimate prepared by the assessee before undertaking the project and the details mentioned therein are not sacrosanct and cannot be used independe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngh, the AR has submitted that this land was purchased through registered sale deed dated 04.01.2013 and no agreement to sell was executed prior to registered sale deed and the same facts was also stated by the seller in his statement recorded before the AO, however the AO has not mentioned this fact in the assessment order and the AR enclosed a photocopy of the statement. The arguments of the AR are found acceptable that no addition can be made solely on the basis of figures mentioned in the document Estimated Cost of Project Pushap Vatika, whose heading itself suggest that it was just an estimate. So, as per decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court consideration mentioned in registered sale deed is conclusive evidence hence it only to considered to calculate actual investment. Therefore, on the basis of the facts mentioned above and in the absence to any agreement to sell, this addition of Rs. 33,25,950/- is not found sustainable and therefore deleted." 6. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. DR has argued that the ld. CIT(A) could not appreciate the facts in totality and, therefore, he deleted the addition of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the transaction value was clearly mentioned, thereby providing reliable supporting evidence. Whereas in other cases, this vital fact that the original notarized agreement to sell was executed, is missing. Thus, no addition can be made solely on the basis of figures mentioned in the document Estimated Cost of Project Pushap Vatika, whose heading itself suggest that it was just an 'Estimate'. 11 In view of the binding decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of 'CIT versus Paramjit Singh' reported in 383 ITR 583 (2010), wherein, it has been held that the amount stated in the registered sale deed is conclusive and must be accepted for the purpose of assessment. Accordingly, no addition can be made merely on the basis of an estimate, in the absence of any other reliable and corroborative evidence to support such estimation. The detailed conclusion is as under. 12. Keeping in view the totality of facts, nature and circumstances, case laws brought on record by the Counsel of the Assessee, we hereby conclude as follows. 12.1 With respect to the addition of Rs. 2,25,04,090/- pertaining to land measuring 25 Kanal 5 Maria purchas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of Rs. 33,25,950/- made for land purchased from Sh. Sukhminder Singh, this land was purchased through registered sale deed dated 04.01.2013 and no agreement to sell was executed prior to registered sale deed and the same facts was also admitted by the seller in his statement recorded before the Assessing Officer, however, while accepting book results, the Assessing Officer has not mentioned this fact in the assessment order. The CIT(A) has produced detailed facts in this matter. He concluded that no addition can be made solely on the basis of figures mentioned in the document Estimated Cost of Project Pushap Vatika, whose heading itself suggest that it was just an 'Estimate'. Therefore, on the basis of the facts mentioned above and in the absence to any agreement to sell, this addition of Rs. 33,25,950/- is not found sustainable and therefore deleted. 12.3 Regarding the addition of Rs. 3,57,353/- on account of interest paid treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act, The Commissioner of Appeals has held that this interest was for the period 01.04.2012 to 30.12.2012, whereas, the seller S. Sukhminder Singh has executed sale deed on 04.01.2013 and made paym....