9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reasons given therein were adopted in the appeals of other assessees. We, therefore, briefly set out the facts in the cases of four assessees and in particular the detailed facts mentioned in the order passed in the case of Panchavati Mall. Family members of four have constituted themselves into partnership firms, i.e., (i) Panchavati Arcade (ii) Panchavati Shopping Complex (iii) Panchavati Mall and (iv) Panchavati Estates. On 19th July, 1989, the four partnership firms purchased land with the following measurements: (a) M/s Panchavati Arcade 444 sq. yds. (b) M/s Panchavati Estates 427 sq. yds. (c) M/s Panchavati Mall 447 sq. yds. (d) M/s Panchavati Shopping Complex 444 sq. yds. A limited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rates at which the company could sell the mulgies allotted to itself. Detailed arguments were advanced by the assessee with the case law in support of its contention. Learned CIT(A), in the case of Panchavati Mall, has considered the issue in great detail and observed in paras 5.(i) to 5.(xvi) that addition cannot be made on notional profit in the absence of any proof to show that the assessee suppressed sale receipts. It is not in dispute that there is no direct evidence to show that the firms have received on-money from the purchasers of shops/mulgies. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the CIT(A), the Revenue preferred appeals before us. 3. Learned Departmental Representative, has relied upon a noting found from the residence of Sri P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailed in other cases. In particular he has relied upon a sale instance at the rate of Rs. 1,440 per sq. ft, which was sold to relative of one of the partners by the company, which reflects the market value of the shops in that area. He has also submitted that in the cases of this kind, direct evidence cannot be obtained and hence the probabilities have to be taken into consideration in the light of the decision of apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More 1973 CTR (SC) 500 : (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC). He further submitted that s. 50(c) cannot be applied for the assessment years under consideration. He has also relied upon several case law in support of his contention that estimate of sale consideration while making assessment is perm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show that the assessee has received any amount over and above what is mentioned in the sale deeds and, at any rate, over and above the market price fixed by the registration authorities for the purpose of stamp duty. It may be relevant in this context to refer to the decision of apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan Anr. (2003) 184 CTR (SC) 450 : (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) at pp. 754, 758 and 762. In IRC vs. Duke of Westminster (1936) AC1 (RL) Lord Tomlin observed as under: "Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however, unappreciative the IRC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
