9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue of the PDCs – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against revenue. Additional payment in violation of Stamp Duty Act, 1899 deleted u/s 37(1) – Held that:- When no expenditure is claimed by the assessee, the question of disallowing the same by the AO does not arise - the assessee was purchasing the land for and on behalf of another company of BPTP Group viz., M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and whatever payment is made by the assessee to land owners or their relatives for purchase of land was debited by the assessee to the account of CWPPL and the payment for purchase of land whether as per stamp duty or additional payment has not been claimed as an expenditure by the assessee - on this factual aspect, there is neither any finding by the CIT(A) nor by the AO – in Westland Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Central Circle-23, New Delhi [2014 (12) TMI 254 - ITAT DELHI] - the principle is also accepted that when the expenditure is not claimed by the assessee, the same cannot be disallowed - However, the question still remains whether such payment i.e. additional payment made by the assessee to land owners or their relatives is claimed by the assessee as a deduction or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest claimed by seller for putting up before senior management does not appear to be convincing. In case of claim, the receiver will not sign the voucher as recipient. Amounts are specific and calculation is 15% per annum. Therefore, ld AR without conceding that the interest is paid on PDCs has taken the stand that in none of the seized material, i.e., even in receipt seized, the interest is from date of issue of PDCs. Now issue arises whether interest on PDCs are paid from date of issue or for extension of PDCs. Documents discussed above where there is clear evidences of receipt of interest is for extension of period of PDCs. Ld AR s arguments that calculation of interest on PDCs has been considered while entering into agreements holds some logic. But when date of PDCs are extended, the recipient will definitely ask and settle for some additional compensation in form of interest. There is no evidence which proves that interest is paid from the date of sale to date of encashment of post dated cheques. However, there is concrete evidence in form of seized material to show that interest is paid and received by seller on the extension of PDCs as discussed above while analyzing the se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s partly allowed. 4. The Revenue, aggrieved with the order of learned CIT(A), is in appeal before us vide ground No.1 reproduced above. 5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused relevant material placed before us. At the outset, the ground raised by the Revenue is misconceived because learned CIT(A) has not deleted the addition of ₹ 5,06,625/- but has only directed to recalculate the interest. We have carefully gone through the order of the learned CIT(A) and also the submissions of both the parties and we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A). After examining the loose papers seized at the time of search at the assessee s premises, it was noticed that interest is paid on the PDCs only during the period of extension of PDCs and, therefore, he directed the Assessing Officer to recomputed the interest on PDCs at the time of extension of the PDCs. He has further observed that if it is not possible to work out the extension of PDCs in each case, then the Assessing Officer is directed to recomputed interest on PDCs after six months from the date of issue of the PDCs. Therefore, the ground of appeal of the Revenue that the CIT(A) del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e additional payment made to the owner of the land or to his brother, father sons their spouses who have got some legal claim over such land by way of account payee cheque is hereby allowed as an expense u/s 37 and additional payment made to others payments are not supported by any legal right over the land and similarly payment made in cash to the owner of land is confirmed as, there are instances of not conforming the receipt by few seller as stated supra. Therefore, the ground is partly allowed. 9. The Revenue, aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), is in appeal before us vide ground No.2. Here again, the Revenue s ground of appeal is misconceived because the CIT(A) has not deleted the entire addition of ₹ 1,01,32,501/- but has partly deleted the addition i.e. in respect of payment made to owner of the land or to his near relatives viz., brother, father, sons and their spouses who may have some legal claim over such land. He had sustained the disallowance in respect of payment made to others i.e., who are not the land owners or close relatives. The assessee is also aggrieved on this point and has raised ground Nos.4, 4.1 and 4.2 in its appeal which read as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rect him to verify whether the assessee has claimed the payment of ₹ 1,01,32,501/- as an expenditure while computing its business income. If no deduction is claimed, then the question of any disallowance would not arise. If the deduction is claimed, then the Assessing Officer would work out the disallowance as directed by the CIT(A). Accordingly, ground No.2 of the Revenue s appeal is rejected and ground Nos.4, 4.1 4.2 of the assessee s appeal are deemed to be allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.1765/Del/2013 Assessee s appeal :- 12. By way of ground No.1, the assessee has contended the validity of the initiation of proceedings under Section 153 of the Act. However, at the time of hearing before us, no specific arguments were raised in support of this ground. Accordingly, ground No.1 is treated as not pressed. 13. Ground No.2 is also in support of above ground No.1. Accordingly, the same is also rejected. 14. Ground No.3 3.1 read as under:- 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in holding to quote, that seized documents definitely prove that interest is paid on PDC despitei. that the seized record on the bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
