9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 973X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the sale agreement and the price as adopted by stamp duty authorities in respect of 12 flats without appreciating that there is no provision under the law to adopt stamp duty valuation for sale of stock in trade and no evidence of whatsoever nature was adduced to prove that money has passed from the buyer of the flats to the developer in excess for the sale price mentioned in the sale agreement and hence addition of Rs.1,10,58,909/-. Original Ground No.4 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming order of Assessing Officer making addition of Rs.4,01,800/- u/s. 68 being loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from Aruna J. Kothari and Rs.3,00,000/- Satish Arora without appreciating that the said loan amounts are genuine and the details required as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eque component and cash component. He therefore held that it was a case of suppression of sale price by the assessee. He adopted the sale price ascertained by the stamp duty authorities and added back into the income of the assessee the difference of price between that of sale agreement and stamp duty authorities arrived at Rs. 1,10,58,909/-. 4. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the selling price adopted by the stamp authorities was not confined only to the actual value or market value but that was because of the difference of carpet area of the flats. The carpet area shown by the assessee in the sale agreement was substantially less as compared to the carpet area ascertained by the stamp authorities. The sale price was adopted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 6. He has further contended that the assessee had constructed the forth, fifth, sixth and seventh floor on the existing building which was old. In the development agreement entered into by the assessee with the land lord, no area appurtenant to the building in the compound was made available to the purchaser of the additional floors, constructed by the assessee. Even no parking space was provided to the purchasers. Moreover there were certain other factors such as noise of trains, two dilapidated buildings in the surroundings, which also contributed for the assessee being not able to fetch the highest market value of the sold flats. He has further contended that the Assessing Officer had applied section 50C of the Income Tax Act while ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities while adopting the sale price of the flats in question. The CIT(A) while confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer also observed that the stamp valuation authorities calculated the area of individual flat after verification and thus it was a case of sale of more carpet area than that was actually mentioned in the sale agreement. However, a perusal of the read reckoner/ departmental instructions produced before us by the ld. Counsel for the assessee reveals beyond doubt that the stamp valuation authorities calculate the saleable area for the purpose of levying of stamp duty in a mechanical manner adopting the formula provided therein, and there remains no occasion for the assessee to rebut or deny the same but to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in the absence of any other evidence/incriminating material brought by the Assessing Officer. The assessee had given justification as to why the flats could not fetch the highest market price such as no parking space available to the purchasers and other contributing factors like noise of trains and two dilapidated buildings in the surroundings. The finding of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee had tried to suppress the actual carpet area of the flat as it was mentioned in the sale agreement that carpet area mentioned in the deed was exclusive of area of balconies, niches and door jambs, in our view, is not well founded. When it was mentioned in the agreement that the value/cost of balcony area was inclusive in the sale value of the carpet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) Aruna J Kothari : Rs.100000/- b) Satish Arora : Rs.300000/- The assessee was asked to furnish the details of the above persons along with IT Return acknowledgments, balance sheets, ledger account and bank statement etc. but it failed to do so. Hence, the loan amount pertaining to above persons along with interest thereon was added into the income of the assessee. Before the CIT(A), it was contended by the representative of the assessee that the necessary details were filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer but the Assessing Officer failed to take note of the same. However, the ld. CIT(A) held that mere filing of details like copies of return of income or capital accounts with the receipt clerk/Dak was not sufficient rather t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
