9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) XXV New Delhi has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 63,00,000/- made by the AO on account of income from other sources." 3. Apropos revenue's first ground, brief facts are: Assessee purchased 4 properties for Rs. 66,70,000/-. According to Assessing Officer, the circle rate of the property was of Rs. 1,01,81,000/-, implying threby that assessee had understated the purchase. Assessing Officer in the hands of the assessed purchaser invoked provisions of Sec. 50C and 69B of the I.T. Act and made addition of Rs. 35,11,000/- as unexplained investment. 3.1. AO thus proposed to make the addition as unexplained investment u/s 69B. Assessee contended that: (i) Sec. 50C and Sec. 69B were not appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s unexplained investment and added to the income of the assessee, which works out to Rs. 35,00,000/- (3,37,000 + 8,22,000 +8,22,000 + 15,30,000). Since the assessee has not disclosed the true particulars of transaction in the alleged purchase and sale of plot, I am satisfied that the assessee concealed the particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income for which the penalty proceedings under Sec. 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately." 3.3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before the CIT(A), before whom following judgments were relied on by the assessee: - Dinesh Kumar Mittal Vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 770 (All) - Amar Kumar Surana Vs. CIT (1997) 226 ITR 344 (Raj.) - CIT Vs. Naresh Khattar HUF (2004) 261 I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Smt. Anita Mahendru. Being a tripartite deal at the time of conveyance of the property, it was conveyed by said Shri Arvind Aggarwal in favour of Mahendrus as a tripartite agreement dated 27-4-2007. As the property was conveyed directly by these two parties, the assessee further entered into a cancellation agreement dated 30-4-2007 with the original seller Shri Arvind Aggarwal. The assessee credited the resultant profit as business income in its return of income as under: Total sale price Rs. 63,00,000 Amount paid to Shri Arivind Aggarwal Rs. 19,00,000 Stamp duty Rs. 78,100 Rs. 19,78,100 Rs. 53,21,900 4.1. Assessing Officer , however, held that this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the vie that there is considerable merit in the submission of the assessee that the Assessing Officer is not justified to make the addition without any valid reason and accordingly, the addition of Rs. 63,00,000/- is deleted but the addition of the surrendered amount of Rs. 50,000/- is confirmed." 5. Aggrieved, revenue is before us. 6. Ld. DR relied on the order of AO. 7. Learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the arguments and case laws relied on before lower authorities. It is pleaded that: (i) Provisions of Sec. 69B and Sec. 50C are not applicable to trading transactions; (ii) The provisions of Sec. 50C have not been invoked against the sellers of the property who had earned capital gains thereon. (iii) The land in que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be disturbed. 8. Apropos ground no. 2, it is pleaded that the necessary profits were already declared by the assessee in books of a/cs, as a business transaction, carried out in regular course of business. Addition of Rs. 50,000/- has been confirmed by CIT(A), which is accepted by assessee. Ld. Assessing Officer without appreciating the facts of the case has resorted to adding the same amount twice albeit at a higher figure of Rs. 63,00,000/- being the difference between the original purchaser and the sale price of the third party. CIT(A) on verification held that it was business transaction and profit of this tripartite transaction has been duly incorporated. 9. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the relevant material a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
