9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 4.66 crores which is more than the twice of the sale consideration paid by the assessee. The assessee has not brought on record any facts or circumstances to show that the value of the property has depreciated during the period from 28.03.2013 to 07.05.2014 and further the fair market price of this property is less than the prevailing price due to certain disadvantages attached to this property. Therefore so far as the action of the AO to invoke the provisions of section 69B is concerned, it is proper on the part of the AO to invoke these provisions if the AO is satisfied that the investment made by the assessee is much more than it has shown in the books of accounts. Thus this matter requires a proper verification and examinat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uated at 201 and 202 Girnar Colony, Gandhi Path, Jaipur were to be sold by Sh. Kailash Chand Sharma and Smt. Urmila Sharma to Sh. Manpreet Vishnoi and Ms Sabia Vishnoi for consideration of ₹ 3,82,50,000/- and ₹ 2,97,50,000/- respectively. Both the agreements have been duly signed by the both parties. These agreements were cancelled vide agreement dated 06.06.2013. Subsequently, these two plots of land No. 201 202 were sold to Sh. Arun Goyal in the month of August and October 2013 for a consideration of ₹ 97.25 lakhs ₹ 76.50 lakhs respectively. The AO was of the view that the fair market price/ value of these plots were ₹ 3,82,50,000/- and ₹ 2,97,50,000/- respectively as it was mentioned in the earlier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted as fair market value of the property in transactions between the assessee and vender. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition made u/s 69B of the Act by the AO. 3. Before us, ld. DR has submitted that though there is no direct evidence of payment of on money by the assessee to the seller however, the incriminating documents found during the search in case of Adventage Group clearly shown the chain of events from intended buyers to the final transfer of the property in favour of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has established the fact that the sale consideration was agreed upon between the original owner and the perspective buyer as per agreement dated 28.03.2013 at ₹ 3,82,50,000/- in respect of plot No 201 and ₹ 2,97, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted any on money paid or received over and above the sale consideration stated in the sale deed. He has further submitted that the Assessing Officer has proceeded on the presumption of market value of the property on the basis of the agreement which was subsequently cancelled and therefore, the very basis of market value of the property adopted by the AO was not inexistence. He has further contended that the agreements between third parties cannot be a basis of the consideration between the assessee and seller. Further the sale/purchase consideration paid by the assessee is more than the DLC rates of these properties, therefore, there is no question of invoking the provisions of section 50D. He has contended that even otherwise section 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vishnoi and Ms Sabia Vishnoi were recorded u/s 131 of the Act. These persons confirmed sale consideration agreed upon between the parties of ₹ 3,82,50,000/- and ₹ 2,97,50,000/- respectively. However, the reasons for cancellation of agreements were stated to be higher sale consideration. After the cancellation of agreements on 06.06.213 these plots were sold to Sh. Arun Goya in the August and October 2013 for a consideration of ₹ 97.25 lakhs as against the sale consideration agreed upon in the original agreements dated 28.03.2013 of ₹ 3,82,50,000/- and ₹ 76.50 lakhs as against the sale consideration of ₹ 2,97,50,000/- as per the agreement dated 28.03.2013. Thus the sale was effected at a consideration whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, when the earlier agreement was cancelled then the sale consideration stated in the earlier agreement cannot be adopted as a fair market price/value of the property for the purpose of section 69B of the Act. The Assessing Officer was ought to have brought some tangible material to satisfy himself that the investment made in these assets were more than the investment as shown by the assessee in the books of accounts. The ld. CIT(A) issue a remand order with specific direction that the director of the assessee company should have been examined by the AO. It is pertinent to note that this direction of the ld. CIT(A) even otherwise would not achieved any purpose as the director of the assessee company would not give a statement detrime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
