9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goes to the root of the matter and are important for adjudicating the issues covered by this appeal because the authorities below made additions to the income from unsubstantiated sources mainly on the grounds that these agreements were not traceable.Thus, we are inclined to set aside and restore the issues covered by this appeal to the file of the AO for de-novo determination of the issue on merits in accordance with law. Appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purpose. - I.T.A. No. 3197/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 23-8-2017 - SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri K.K. Lalkaka For The Revenue : Shri V. Vidhyadhar (DR) ORDER PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member This appeal, filed by the assessee, being ITA No. 3197/Mum/2015, is directed against the appellate order dated 03.02.2015 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 16, Mumbai (hereinafter called the CIT(A) ), for assessment year 2011-12, appellate proceedings before learned CIT(A) has arisen from the assessment order dated 27.01.2014 passed by the learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called the AO ) u/s 143(3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... developer and the provisions of section 50C are not applicable in the appellant's case. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the Order of the Assessing Officer in taxing the entire income of ₹ 1,95,000/- as Income from Other Sources although the only income earned by the assessee during the year is business income arising from development of property and not giving any deduction in respect of expenses incurred for earning the said business income. Your appellant therefore prays that the addition made of ₹ 9,45,000/- is unjustifiable on facts and untenable in law and, therefore, needs to be deleted. 3. The assessee has also raised the following additional ground:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in not deducting difference between opening and closing stock of ₹ 13,61,415/- from the totalsales which is against all principles of standard accounting. 4. At the outset, It is the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee before the Bench wherein attention is drawn to letter dated 10th April, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e value 1 7 Anugya P. Garodia 3,25,000 2 15 Ganesh S. Patel 3,60,000 3 16 Smita H. Shah 3,25,000 4 306 Dharmendra Khumbhar 2,00,000 5 310 P.L. Mirani 3,36,000 6 Other income (Balancing Amt) 1,95,000 Total 17,41,000 The A.O. observed that only two sale agreements in respect of Flat No. 15 and Flat No. 310 was related to the period under assessment and one agreement relating to Flat No. 306 was registered on 26th April, 2006 for ₹ 2 lacs as against market value of ₹ 2,63,211/- and hence the flat no 306 cannot be said to have been sold during the year under consideration. The sale of flats and the copies of agreements furnished by the assessee are summarized as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 2,00,000/- against market value of ₹ 2,63,211/- and hence flat no 306 cannot be said to have been sold during previous year relevant to assessment year. Since the assessee produced only two agreements, the AO held that the assessee has sold only two flats during the year. The AO observed that registration value of these two flats of which agreements are produced are flat no. 15 and 310 and its registration value is ₹ 6,96,000/- as against market value of ₹ 14,11,000/- and hence market value was treated as sale value and accordingly income @12% on the sale value and also un-substantiated income w.r.t. sale value of the rest of three flats was brought to tax by the AO, vide assessment order dated 27-01-2014 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 27-01-2014 passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before ld. CIT(A) who also confirmed the assessment order of the A.O., vide appellate order dated 03-02-2015 passed by learned CIT(A). 6. Aggrieved by the appellate order dated 03-02-2015 passed by learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 7. The l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Daljeet Kaur v. ITO 212 Taxation 46 wherein it has been held that the additional evidence which is critical and goes to the very root of the matter cannot be rejected outright and a reasonable approach is required regarding its acceptance. Your appellant will, therefore, be grateful if the said additional evidence is admitted to meet the ends of justice. Yours faithfully, For Das Patel Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. Sd/- Veena Patel Director Thus, the ld. counsel prayed that the additional evidence may please be admitted as it could not be submitted earlier as the same were not traceable due to death of Managing Director. The ld. counsel submitted that these additional evidence goes to the root of the matter as they are the two agreements of the sale of flats which are referred to by the AO while making addition as income from unsubstantiated income, the matter may be set aside to the file of the A.O. for verification and adjudication of the issue after considering the two agreements which could not be submitted earlier. 8. The ld. D.R., however, objected to the filing of additional e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
