9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng total income of Rs. 5,81,310/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 14.12.2011 and the total income was determined at Rs. 81,12,220/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 3.9.2012 allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us and has raised the following effective ground: "The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of sale consideration treated as undisputed income of Rs. 75,30,905/-" 4. On the basis of AIR information received by the AO, it was noted by AO that assessee had sold immovable prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y which was done on 16/7/2008 for an amount of 76,00,000/- has been reflected in the return. In the return, the profit from the sale of this land (Survey No. 174, Kudasan) of 69,095/- has been shown. The appellant stated that this land was earlier reflected in its books of accounts in the name of proprietary concern M/s. Maheshwari Builders and the land was agricultural land waiting NA Clearance from the relevant authorities and the booking of most of the plots had already been done and profits reflected in the returns for earlier years, and in the books maintained for M/s. Maheshwari Builders. It was claimed that as NA clearance could not be obtained; the allottees became aggrieved and restless and pursued the matter with the assessee. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e objections of the AO to the explanation of the assessee both in the assessment order and in the remand report; the following pertinent observations are required to be made, regarding them: Objections of the AO on the facts of the transactions:- The basic objections of the AO are (a) the audit report shows the profit directly without showing the complete transactions (Addl, CIT in his letter endorsing the remand report) (b) only Rs. 2,93,498/- appeared in the balance sheet as the value of land-asset as on 31/3/2008 (para. 4.5 (i) of the asstt. order) (c) the entire transactions as claimed before FY 2007-08 are not appearing in the books of account of M/s. Hasmukhbhai K. Patel (Indl.) and only hawala transactions are appearing [para.4.5(ii ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce sheet. This is the amount Rs. 2,93,498/- which the AO and the Addl. CIT are referring to. I do not find any logic as to how it can be taken adversely against the appellant. Subsequently, even after a long time, the NA could not be obtained. The allottees became aggrieved and restless and pursued the matter with the assessee. It was decided that within 6 months from 26/2/2008 all the formalities of NA clearance would be obtained, if possible and sale deeds executed failing which the allottees would receive 2 ½ times the payment made by them for the booking. As the land stood in the individual name of the appellant, again the subsequent entries were passed in the individual hands and not in the separate books of M/s, Maheshwari Bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment proceedings as reproduced by the AO on page-21 of the order. What has to be understood is Total Profit of the scheme, purchase and sale of property in the hands of the appellant (individual accounts and M/s Maheshwari Builders taken together) would be Rs. 6,66,668/- (76,00,000 less 28,44,332 less 40,89,000). This income has been undoubtedly declared by the appellant in the earlier years and in the assessment year 2009-10. The income from final sale of land less all costs has accrued to the appellant when the sale deed has finalized and accounts with allottees settled. Therefore, it has correctly been offered in AY 2009-10 and not in AY 2008-09 when the agreements allowing possible sales, in case NA was actually not received w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Federal Bank Ltd 301 ITR 188 have decided the issue on these principles. It is therefore held that no addition at all called for on the facts of the case. The addition made by the AO is directed to be deleted. The grounds of appeal are allowed." 5. Thus aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us. Before us, Ld DR took us through the findings of AO and supported his order. On the other hand, Ld AR reiterated the submissions made before CIT(A) and supported his order. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that Ld CIT(A) at para 5.2 has noted that the alleged discrepancies noted by the AO were never confronted to the assessee and therefore he did not get a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
