9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... collected on money on the sale of flats and also there is no proof that the assessee had made unaccounted investments or credits etc. Therefore, it is clear that the concurrent findings are based on valid material and evidence. It is a question of fact and not a perverse order. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue is also unable to produce any material evidence to take a contrary view. Hence, no error or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference. Appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee and allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of assessment. Aggrieved by that order, the revenue has filed an appeal in ITA.No.1612(MDS)/2002. The Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals). Hence, the Revenue has filed the above appeal. 3. Learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for the revenue vehemently contended that the Tribunal is wrong in deleting the addition made by the assessing officer to the income from three flat complexes promoted by the assessee and also contended that the Tribunal has failed to see that the assessee had admitted certain discrepancies in the sale price. He further contended that the Tribunal has failed to see that the assessing officer has made addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as correct sale proceeds 6,15,010/- DWARAKA COLONY, MYLAPORE. Alacrity Housing Ltd has sold a project in No.45, I Main Road, No.11, III Cross Street, CIT Colony, Mylapore, this project was done between the period August 1992 to March 1994. The sale value per sq.ft in the above project, after excluding the cost of registration, was Rs.822/- per sq.ft whereas the assessee company also has sold the Dwaraka Colony Project, Mylapore in the period November 1992 to September 1994 and the average rate of sale per sq.ft was Rs.727/-. Again as explained before there is no reason why the assessee should sell less than the market rate. Therefore, correct sale proceeds are arrived at by applying sale rate of Rs.822/- per sq.ft. Rs. Sale value of 1289 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rate of average value by comparing with Alacrity. The said addition was made by comparing with M/s Alacrity Housing Limited. The reason for making this addition is that the contractors of Alacrity Housing Limited has admitted the sale of flats for more consideration and such practice should also prevail invariably with all the other promoters. Based on the estimation, the assessing officer has made the addition above. In this case, there is no proof to show that the assessee has received on money and the revenue also has not even examined the flat buyers to verify the same. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considering the details submitted by the assessee held as follows:- ".... Coming to the factual position I am of the cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd evidence. That on money could have been received just like 'Alacrity is obviously a surmise. The assessing officer has not recorded a statement from any flat buyers that they have paid on money. No other evidence has been gathered from any other source not there is any proof that the appellant had made unaccounted investment or credits etc." 5. From a reading of the above it is clear that no evidence was gathered by the revenue to show that the assessee has received higher value and the additions were made only on presumption. The Appellate Tribunal has also considered the factual position and held as follows:- "The Commissioner (Appeals) also discussed the factual details. The assessee explained as to under what circumstances they pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le of flats and also there is no proof that the assessee had made unaccounted investments or credits etc. Therefore, it is clear that the concurrent findings are based on valid material and evidence. It is a question of fact and not a perverse order. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue is also unable to produce any material evidence to take a contrary view. Hence, we do not find any error or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference and the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same is confirmed. In these circumstances, no substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal and the Tax Case (Appeal) is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
