9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hands of the assessee and the Ld. DR could not controvert the said fact before us which is material to decide this issue. Further, the ld. CIT (A) has recorded a finding of fact that as per the sale deed, the assessee has disclosed full value of sale consideration and the said fact also could not be controverted by the Ld. DR before us, as such, we agree with the Ld. CIT(A) that there was no factual or legal basis to contemplate any notional or hypothetical sale consideration in the absence of any specific evidence or material in the possession of the AO to counter the stand of the assessee. Thus the addition is based only on presumption and surmises and so the addition made by the AO was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) - Decided against revenue. - ITA No.4188/Del./2012 - - - Dated:- 10-11-2015 - SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA For The Revenue : Shri Hemant Gupta, Senior DR ORDER PER A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal, at the instance of the revenue, is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XIII, New Delhi dated 04.05.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idences were produced to substantiate the contentions raised by the assessee and the assertions made were vague to cover up the variations in the rates of similar properties. Accordingly, the AO observed that since the properties were all similarly located and of similar description, there were no tangible reasons for their valuation at different rates; and the AO rejected the trading results declared by the assessee on the ground that these did not reflect the correct profits made in the reported transactions. The AO accordingly adopted the value of the property sold to Shri Rajnish Juneja for ₹ 22 lakhs as the rate for valuation of the other properties sold by the assessee during the year and thus, the AO held that the total consideration receivable for the report sales was ₹ 88 lakhs. Thus, he made addition of ₹ 41,50,000/- (Rs.88,00,000/- minus ₹ 46,50,000/- = ₹ 41,50,000/-) as the difference amount brought to tax as unreported profits as the assessee had not furnished any compelling reasons for transacting its business at less than the prevailing price of the properties as per its own results. Accordingly, the AO completed the assessment at ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... support of the above position, the appellant has furnished various documents in the paper book filed before me, which are as under :- S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO. 1. Copies of sales deed of flats 8 30 2. Copy of letter filed before assessing officer dated 18112/08 31 3. Details of Extra work carried out in the flats sold to Dr. Juneja 32 4. Copy of letter of Dr. Juneja for carrying out extra work 33 It was submitted that all these documents were furnished during the course of original assessment before the ASSESSING OFFICER. However, the Assessing Officer has not properly appreciated these facts and order was passed in a mechanical manner. In the original assessment order, the Assessing Officer has made reference to the claim of the appellant regarding additional cost incurred in respect of sale of flat to Dr. Rajnish Juneja and details of sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh any supporting documents/evidences during reassessment proceedings despite issue of several notices by the AO. He further submitted that the ld. CIT (A) was not right in admitting the fresh evidences under Rule 46A of the Act without giving opportunity to the AO to comment on the said additional evidences and deleted the addition. The ld. DR accordingly prayed that the order of the CIT (A) be set aside and that of the AO be restored. 7. On the other hand, ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the ld. CIT (A) and submitted that the assessee could not attend the hearing on 12.09.2011 before the AO because the assessee did not receive the notice, therefore, question of non-compliance does not arise. He, however, submitted that the AO reconfirmed the original assessment on the same basis and the AO has not undertaken any exercise as directed by the Tribunal even though all the relevant documents were on record. He submitted that the assessee sold 4 (four) flats for a total sales consideration of ₹ 46,50,000/- to four different persons (details already mentioned above) and the AO adopted value of the property sold to Dr. Rajnish Juneja as the basis for valuation of o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... So, he does not want us to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT (A). 8. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We find that the only issue in dispute is regarding addition of ₹ 41,50,000/- as unrecorded profit on sale of flats and the AO made the addition on the ground that assessee had sold flats to different parties at different rates. We find that the Assessing Officer observed that flat was sold to Dr. Rajnish Juneja at ₹ 22 lacs and to other parties the flats were sold at ₹ 7,50,000/- to ₹ 9,00,000/- and accordingly, Assessing Officer applied the sale price relating to Dr. Rajnish Juneja in the case of sales made to other parties. We find that the ld. CIT (A) has observed that the Assessing Officer has not properly appreciated the facts and contents of the sale deed and mechanically applied the sale price relating to Dr. Rajnish Juneja in the case of other parties in total disregard to legal documents placed on record. We further find that the assessee has furnished following documents in the paper book before the Ld. CIT (A) regarding the additional work carried out at the specific request of Dr. Rajnish Juneja : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO to verify the fact of additional cost incurred in respect of sale of flat to Dr. Rajnish Juneja which exercise also the AO failed to carry out by asking from the buyers of other flats the cost they incurred to buy the flats, without doing so, the addition is based only on presumption and surmises and so the addition made by the AO was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). And we do not find any merit in the contention of the Ld. DR that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to ask for remand-report before admitting additional evidences because no new evidences were in fact filed before the Ld. CIT(A) for the first time. The evidences relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) to delete the addition were already on the file of the AO during original assessments which were filed on 18.12.2008 as discernable from the CIT(A) order at page 11. So there was no need for the Ld CIT(A) to seek any remand report as contemplated in the Income Tax Rule. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Ld CIT(A) and so we uphold the order of the ld. CIT (A) and dismiss the grounds taken by the revenue. 9. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
