9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue. - ITA No. 2542/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 9-1-2015 - Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. I. C. Sudhir, JM,JJ. For the Petitioner : Sh. V. S. Rastogi, CA For the Respondent : Sh. Vikram Sahay, Sr. DR ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: This is an appeal by the department against the order dated 22.01.2013 of ld. CIT(A)-XXXIII, New Delhi. 2. The only effective ground raised in this appeal read as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 20,05,346/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest on PDCs Paid outside the books of account. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 16.09.2008 declaring an income of ₹ 34,861/-. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee was engaged in the business of development, construction and marketing of real projects for commercial residential use. A search seizure operation was carried out on BPTP Ltd. and some of its group companies on 15.11.2007, the assessee company belonged to the said group. On the basis of the post search enquiries made, it was established that the grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave done. The sale between the company and the farmers is based on a bilateral contract which is executed as a sale deed and duly registered under the Registration Act. There is no evidence to show that, any interest payment over and above what has been recorded in the sale deed as sale consideration has been made by company. In this connection, as regards the question of tax avoidance or evasion, it is submitted that under sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, no oral evidence may be admitted by the Court which is contrary to the averments contained in a written document (i.e. the sale deed in this case) and that a written contract cannot be ignored and a different contract between the parties be spelt out by the Court References: (i) Re Poly Pack International PLC (in admn.) (1962) 2 All ER 433 (ii) CIT V Motor Gen. Stores (P) Ltd. (1997) 66 ITR 692 (SC) (iii) CIT V. B. M. Kharwar (1969) 72 ITR 603 (iv) ITO V. Shriram Bearings Ltd. (1987) 164 ITR 419 (Cal) affirmed in ITO V. Shriram Bearings Ltd. (1997) 224 ITR 724 (SC) (v) SBI Vs Mula Sahakari Sakar Karkhana Ltd. reported in 132 Comp Cases 565 (SC) .. Kindly note that as explained above, the consideration f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es that interest is paid on PDCs. Various voucher in seized documents conclusively proves that the recipient has signed on voucher for receipt of the interest. Ld. AR s contention that these are only working of interest 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 evidence of receipt of interest is for extension of period of PDCs. Ld. AR s arguments that calculation of interest on 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 mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. It would be proper to compute interest after 6 months form date of Sale on conservative side. Accordingly this ground is partly allowed. 6. Now the department is in appeal. The ld. DR reiterated the observations made by the AO and strongly supported the assessment order dated 28.12.2010. In his rival submissions the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the order dated 31.10.2014 of the ITAT C Bench, New Delhi in the case of a sister concerns of the assessee viz. M/s IAG Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 1674/Del/2013 1765/Del/2013 for the assessment year 2008-09(copy of the said order was furnished). 7. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. It is noticed that the facts of the present case are identical to the facts involved in the case of M/s IAG Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The said company is a sister concerns of the assessee and belonged to the same group companies of BPTP Group to which the assessee belongs. In the said case vide order dated 31.10.2014 the ITAT Bench C , New Delhi in ITA Nos. 1674/Del/2013 1765/D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
