9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erials in course of search - Working of the CIT (A) has not been contradicted by the learned AR with any documentary evidence – Decided against the Assessee. - ITA No.968/Bang/2011, ITA No.1013/Bang/2011 - - - Dated:- 30-8-2013 - Before Shri N. Barthvajasankar And Shri George George K. ,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Narendra Rebelly, DR For the Respondent : Shri Srinivas Kamath, CA ORDER Per George George K, J.M. These two appeals instituted at the instances of - one by the assessee-firm and another by the Revenue - are directed against the order of the CIT (A)-VI, Bangalore, dated, 23.8.2011. The relevant assessment year is 2009-10. I. ITA No.968/B/2011 - By the assessee firm: 2. The assessee firm has raised six grounds in its grounds of Memorandum. Ground Nos.1,2 6 are general in nature and, therefore, they are dismissed. In ground No.5, the assessee firm had stated that the CIT (A) erred in not raising (sic) dealing with the ground on the issue of interest levied u/s 234A, 234B and 234C which was not leviable as per the decision of the jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court etc. However, during the course of hearing, the learned AR submitted that there we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the course of assessment proceedings and for the reasons recorded in his order, the AO held that the assessee had earned a total profit of Rs.2,24,66,173/- from selling of the commercial complex as against Rs.90 lakhs as admitted in its return of income. The AO concluded that the assessee had earned a total profit of Rs.2.24 crores as per the seized documents; however, accounted for only Rs.90 lakhs in its books, thereby suppressed the unaccounted amounts to the tune of Rs.1.34 crores [ Rs.2,24,66,173 - 90,00,000]. 5.2. Aggrieved, the assessee took up the issue, among others, before the CIT (A). After taking into consideration of the assessee's contentions as recorded in his findings, the CIT (A) has held as under: "3.1.3............................................................... Though the AO, has quoted yet another seized material which is in page 6 wherein total profit is mentioned at Rs.2,24,66,173/- in the light of the fact that they have allocated even the sale consideration in the same ratio as that of 40%, 30% 30% and also since this figure of profit on a total sale consideration of less than Rs.5 crores which gives an abnormal profit percentage of 45% there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecrease in value for the upper floors where the second floor rates are lower by Rs.600/sft (i.e., Rs.3600 minus Rs.3000), the maximum rate that can be adopted for the third floor is Rs.2400/sft which is less by Rs.600/sft than the second floor. Going by the total area of 14152 sft the total sale consideration works out as under: Floor Sft. Rate Total Gr. Floor 3136 5180 1,62,44,480 I Floor 3672 3600 1,32,19,200 II Floor* 3672 3007 1,10,41,704 III Floor** 3672 2357 86,54,100 4 Floors 14152 3474 4,91,59,484 *(201 to 205) 1556 sft 3100 48,25,000 (208 209) 1290 sft 2900 37,41,000 (206 207 826 sft 3000 24,78,000 9 shops 3672 sft 3007 1,10,44,000 **(301 to 305) 1556 sft. 2400 37,34,400 (306 to 309) 2116 sft 2325 49,19,700 9 shops 3672 sft 2357 86,54,100 In view of the same, the gross sale proceeds are arrived at Rs.4,91,59,484/- as against the appellant's working of Rs.3,44,72,244/- which cannot be accepted as correct in the absence of proper books of accounts. Hence, there is a case for rejection of the appellant's claim both with regard to income and expenditure. The appellant's offer of Rs.90 lakhs income shows a net profit of 18.3% on a turnover of Rs.4,91,59,484/-. The AO's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an incriminating document pertaining to the sale of commercial complex 'Pam Arcade' promoted by the assessee was unearthed. During the course of proceedings before the AO, admittedly, the assessee had neither filed P L account nor the balance sheet. No books of account were produced for the AO's verification. The assessee had, however, admitted the income at Rs.90 lakhs as per the declaration made u/s 132(4) of the Act. As rightly pointed out by the AO, the assessee had not spelt out the basis of arriving at the income at Rs.90 lakhs which goes without saying that the assessee had presumably arrived at that figure only on estimation. More so, the assessee had admitted before the first appellate authority that there was change of hands of black money also in the sale proceeds of the said commercial complex. To put the record straight, we extract the assessee's submission before the CIT (A) as under: "3.1.2...............................It is argued that as per page 4 and 5, it could be seen that the gross consideration received is shared between the partners Mr. Ameen, Mr. Pinto and Mr.Montero in the ratio of 40%, 30% 30% and the same is done in respect of consideration receiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
