9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overing letter dated 31.12.2010, which is not rebutted by the Revenue. In fact, at the directions of the Bench, Ld DR produced the assessment records and it is noticed that the said papers were duly found in the assessment records – Decided against the Revenue. - I.T.A. No.369/M/2012 - - - Dated:- 4-9-2013 - Shri Vijay Pal Rao And Shri D. Karunakara Rao,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri C. G. K. Nair, DR For the Respondent : Shri Pradip N. Kapasi ORDER Per D. Karunakara Rao, AM:- This appeal filed by the Revenue on 16.1.2012 is against the order of CIT (A)- 29, Mumbai dated 30.11.2011 for the assessment year 2008-2009. 2. In this appeal, Revenue raised the following grounds which read as under: "1. On the facts and in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition of Rs. 1.5 Crs being advances received from Success Developers Pvt. Ltd. Facts relating to the said addition are that the assessee owns certain rights certain rights by way of benefit of constructions permissible on Sion Sivaji Nagar Coop. Housing Project on Lakhamshi Nappo Road. Assessee transferred the said benefits to SDPL under the agreement and the SDPL made a payment of refundable advance of Rs. 1.5 Crs to the assessee, which was duly shown in the balance sheet of the assessee. AO initiated the proceedings late in the year and wanted some details relating to this transaction involving payment of Rs. 1.5 Crs. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued on 28.12.2010 when the due date for completion of the assessment was 31.12.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O. 6. On the other hand, Shri Pradip N. Kapasi, Ld Counsel for the assessee refuted the allegation of the AO and, in this regard, he brought our attention to the admitting of the additional evidence referred to in ground no.2, and argued vehemently stating that the ground is not correct as the cited evidences were already furnished on 31.12.2010 to the AO which were available on the assessment records produced before the Court. Regarding the merits of the addition, Ld Counsel mentioned that the amount of Rs. 1.5 Crs is merely a refundable deposit kept with the assessee as a security towards violation of guidelines, if any, by the SDPL. With regard to the FSI transfer to the SDPL, the said amount needs to be refunded on completion of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g previous years. The deposit was given for the purpose of securing the appellant against a possible misappropriation of FSI belonging to appellant which was for the limited purpose of facilitating construction transferred in the Municipal records in the name of Success Developers, who were the developers of Matunga Plot. According to the agreement Success Developers Pvt. Ltd has to construct flats and handover constructed floors to the appellant for a consideration payable by appellant to SDPL in effect the appellant used its surplus. FSI to get constructed area for sale. The appellant also agreed to pay Success Developers Pvt. Ltd. a mutually agreed price per sq.ft for carrying out the construction. This amount was a deposit free of inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
