9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade out finding on the factual & documentary bases. There is no substantial material taken by the Assessing Officer while making that addition. The CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. Therefore, we uphold the order of CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 3826/DEL/2013 - - - Dated:- 26-8-2016 - R. S. Syal (Accountant Member) And Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) For the Appellant :. S. K. Jain, SR. DR For the Respondent : Tarandeep Singh, Adv ORDER Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) This appeal is filed against the order dated 11/02/2013 passed by CIT(A) -XXX, New Delhi 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been received from Asstt. Director of Income Tax, Unit-1, New Delhi according to which Shri Brij Kishore Kochhar the assessee has been allotted 5,000 sq. ft. area on the 6* floor of AMR IT Project at Plot No. 9 Tech Zone, Greater Noida. A survey operations conducted in respect of M/s Real Gans Estate Pvt. Ltd. on 20.11.2008 during which certain incriminatory documents were seized regarding understating of prices of property sold by the company. As per the papers seized relating to the investment of the transaction the assessee the total cost of the office came to ₹ 2,15,00,000/- for 5000 sq. ft. which comes out to be ₹ 4,300/- per sq. ft. and costs ₹ 1,62,32,500/- after some discounts. The form mentioned receipt of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enclosed pages 9 to 13 of PB) and second for 1,000 sq foot area. Both these applications were filed accepting the base price of the property at ₹ 1,500/- per sq. ft. It is submitted that both these applications were made by the assessee jointly along with his wife Mrs. Prabha Kochar. 6. Two separate Memorandums of Understanding dated 20th July 2007 were signed by the assessee in regard with M/s AMR Infrastructure Limited. The same was on record during the assessment proceeding. The Memorandum of Understandings were signed by partied after acceptance of booking applications by M/s AMR Infrastructure Limited. Both these MOU s accepted the rate of allotment as ₹ 1,500/- per sq ft. The payment details accepted under the Memorandu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s Real Gains Estate to the assessee vide cheque no. 492695 dated 26th June 2007 and that this debt was completely discharged by the assessee subsequently as under: (copy of certificate dated 02nd April 2008 issued by M/s Real Gains Estate (P) Ltd in this regard is enclosed in paper book at page 28): Cheque No. Date Amount 725947 21.01.2008 10,00,000/- 725948 21.01.2008 6,00,000/- 725950 22.02.2008 15,00,000/- 725952 29.03.2008 2,00,000/- 462469 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited. In this regard M/s AMR Infrastructures Limited confirmed to the AO that the rate at which property was sold to the assessee was ₹ 1,500/- per sq ft. 11. The Assessing Officer added ₹ 87,42,500/- as unexplained expenditure. Aggrieved by this, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Revenue is before us. 12. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly added the said amount as unexplained expenditure as the assessee has not given any clear reply and it was not acceptable. The standard sale price varies from place to place, therefore, the re-opening u/s 147 was right and Assessing Officer has rightly added the said amount. The CIT(A) failed to look i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he rate is mentioned as ₹ 1,500/- per Sq. feet making it clear that the difference i.e., ₹ 2,800/- per Sq feet has been received in cash which comes to 2800 X 5000= ₹ 1,40,00,000 . It is submitted that in the reasons the AO has also noted a total discounted price for the property at ₹ 1,62,32,500/-. The per sq ft rate as per this is ₹ 3246.50. The difference in such a case should be ₹ 1746.50 per sq ft and not ₹ 2,800 per sq ft. Once the appellant has deposed the details of his investment before the Investigation cell, then the above reasons cannot be held to be based on tangible materials so as to constitute a reason to believe . Mu view gets supported by the orders passed by Hon ble Jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
