9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on alone can be subject to income tax. In the result this ground of appeal raised by revenue is dismissed. Addition on account of difference in TDR - Held that:- The original owner of TDR was one Shri Ramesh Shah Partner of M/s Sumer Corporation who had obtained DRC from Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC). The assessee filed copy of agreements, ledger accounts of the assessee in the books of Premleela Investment and the confirmation of the opening balance with Premleela Investments to substantiate their contention. The actual transaction for purchase of TDR was examined by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and also examined the value of transaction entered by the assessee as well as the value of agreement between seller Premleela Investments and come to the conclusion that the value of agreement is ₹ 1,99,02,636/- and deleted the addition. We have seen that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) verified the facts and the consideration paid by the assessee for purchase of TDR from Premleela Investments. The learned DR has not been able to bring any incriminating fact or evidence to discard the finding of learned Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, we do not find any merit in the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer while passing assessment order made the additions of ₹ 2,15,98,572/- on account of bogus purchases and ₹ 12,49,701/- on account of difference in the provisions of Transfer of Development Right (TDR) from Premleela Investment. On appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) the additions on account of bogus purchases under section 69 was restricted to 12% of the impugned purchases and the addition on account of difference in TDR of ₹ 12,49,701/- was deleted. Thus, being aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals) the revenue has filed present appeal before us. 3. We have heard the ld. DR for the revenue and the ld AR of the assessee and perused the material available on record. Ground number 1 relates to restricting the addition at the rate of 12% of the alleged bogus purchases. The learned AR for the revenue argued that during the assessment proceeding the assessing officer noticed that the assessee has shown purchases from 10 of parties, which were providing accommodation entries without sales of material and delivery of goods. The names of all those parties are listed in the list of hawala dealers. The list of Hawala dealers was provided by the Sale tax D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessing officer noticed that the certain purchases shown by the assessee are from the dealers, the names of which are appearing in the list of Hawala dealers, provided by the Sale tax Department. The assessing officer in paragraph 5 of its order recorded the names of such dealers and the amounts of purchases shown by assessee. The assessing officer noted that assessee has made a purchase of ₹ 2,15,98,572/- from such parties. The assessee was asked to substantiate the purchases from such parties. The assessee vide its reply dated 28th Feb 2014 contended that the purchases from the said parties are genuine purchases. The assessee filed copy of bills, delivery challans along with the statement of account and the ledger account of the parties showing the payment. The assessee specifically demanded the copy of statement of Hawala dealers which were allegedly recorded by the Sale tax Department. The contention of the assessee was not accepted by the assessing officer holding that the assessee failed to produce the documentary evidence about transport, movement of stock and delivery of goods. The assessee also failed to produce the stock register to show that the stock has been re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded sales consideration alone can be subject to income tax. In the result this ground of appeal raised by revenue is dismissed. 5. Ground No,2 relates to deleting the addition on account of difference in TDR for ₹ 12,49,701/-. The ld DR for the revenue supported the order of assessing officer and argued that ld CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee without appreciating the fact. The assessee has not provided the details of purchase of TDR during the assessment proceedings. The ld DR prayed that this ground of appeal may be restored to the file of assessing officer. On the other hand the ld AR for the assessee supported the order of ld CIT(A). The ld AR for the assessee submits that all the details along with the evidences was furnished to the assessing officer and explained the facts before assessing officer. The ld CIT(A) granted the relief to the assessee after appreciating the facts explained before her. It was submitted that by virtue of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme Shri Ramesh a partner of M/s Sumer Corporation was having Development Right Certificate (DRC) for 13700 sq meter. M/s Sumer Corporation agreed to sell TDR of 1460 Sq Meter to M/s Sunil Maitry Realty vide agre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
