9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arlier agreement to sell the seller of the land was required to give developed land to the assessee and in modified terms, it is upon the assessee who would incur the expenditure - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - IT(ss)A Nos. 187/Ahd/2010, 240/Ahd/2010, 241/Ahd/2010 - - - Dated:- 28-8-2014 - Shri N. S. Saini And Shri Kul Bharat,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Subhash Bains, CIR-DR For the Respondent : Shri Mehul Shah, A.R. ORDER Per Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member : Out of these three appeals; one appeal by the Revenue and two appeals by the Assessee are directed against two orders of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-II, Ahmedabad ( CIT(A) in short) both identically dated 27/11/2009 pertaining to Assessment Years (AYs) 2003-04 2004-05. Since common issues and facts are involved, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. First, we take up the Assessee s appeal in IT(ss)A No.240/Ahd/2010 for AY 2003-04. The Assessee has raised the following ground(s) of appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellant got the title defect in the said land cleared by entering into a registered modification deed with the earlier owners so as to get the clear title in her name. The assessee purchased the property at ₹ 30,97,000/- and made development expenditure amounting to ₹ 16,02,440/-. Hence, the assessee acquired the land at the rate of ₹ 46,99,440/-. He submitted that in spite of the aforesaid clear facts, the AO has treated the amount as per the original agreement to sell and the purchase price as being unaccounted investment of the assessee and has made a total addition of ₹ 51,84,000/-, i.e. an addition of ₹ 26,47,280/- in the A.Y. 2003-04 and ₹ 25,36,720/- in the AY 2004-05. He submitted that the ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the purchase of land at Block Nos.213, 214, 215, 227 228 are in the name of Ramesh Tailor and not in the name of appellant. Thus, when Shri Ramesh Tailor is canceling the deal, due to title being defective, the original price as agreed by him cannot be presumed to have been paid by the assessee. The fact that the land was defective is evidenced from the seized material itself in the form of modi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng it afresh after giving an opportunity to the assessee. The AO would verify the claim of the assessee that in earlier agreement to sell the seller of the land was required to give developed land to the assessee and in modified terms, it is upon the assessee who would incur the expenditure. For this limited purpose, this ground of the assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(ss)A No.240/Ahd/2010 for AY 2003-04 is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Now, we take the Revenue s appeal in IT(ss)A No.187/Ahd/2010 for AY 2003-04. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: i) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 8,00,000/- made on account of unaccounted investment in land as per Annexure-A-1 seized from the residence of the assessee during the course of search. ii) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in accepting the contention of the assessee that the balance payments was not made as the other two plots are not yet registered ignoring that sufficient period had lapsed since the execution of the satakhat and art payment made in the financial year 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as regards the balance amount there is a clear condition in the said agreement that only when the said land would be converted into NA (on agriculture), the registered agreement would be executed and the balance payment would be paid at that time when the possession would be taken. Till date out of 3 plots of land at survey no.410, 414, 451, (Block no.472) only one plot of land at Survey no.414 had been converted into NA, and accordingly, the registered document in respect of the said plot was entered into for ₹ 4,95,000/-. however, the NA of land at survey no.410 451 was pending. Therefore, the appellant s submission seems to be acceptable that as per the terms of the agreement itself, there is no question of making any payment for the remaining two plots, which are still in the possession and ownership of the original owners. b) It is in the agreement itself that balance 50% of the amount of ₹ 16,00,000/- is to be paid on completion of NA to all the three plots. When the same is not done, the appellant s submission is acceptable that only amount paid is ₹ 8,0,000/- and the balance amount is still not paid. In view of these facts, it is held that the A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
