9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010-11 and estimated at ₹ 2,35,938/- at 12.5% on ₹ 18,87,500/-. We find infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), this appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. - I.T.A.No.427/Viz/2016 , I.T.A.No.428/Viz/2016, I.T.A.No.456/Viz/2016 And Cross Objection No.07/Viz/2018 - - - Dated:- 18-4-2018 - SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, AR For The Revenue : Shri K.C.Das, DR ORDER PER V.DURGA RAO, Judicial Member: The appeals in ITA No.427/Viz/2016, ITA No.456/Viz/2016 and CO No.07/Viz/2018 are emanated from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] vide ITA No.65/CIT(A)/VJA/2015-16 dated 23.08.2016 for the assessment year 2009-10 and ITA No.428/Viz/2016 for the assessment year 2010-11 is emanated from the order of the CIT(A) vide ITA No.64/CIT(A)/VJA/2015-16 dated 23.08.2016. ITA No.427/Viz/2016 2. Ground Nos.1.0, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 are not pressed by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee and the same are dismissed as not pressed. 3. Only grounds for adjudication in this appeal are extracted as under : 1.1. The Learned CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s admission filed revised returns from A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2010-11 admitting the income from all ventures in his hands as an individual. But no work-in-progress as admitted during the survey as declared in the revised returns in firms hands, was admitted in the individual for A.Y. For every retraction, there should be a basis. The assessee has not produced any books of account or other material. Even the income expenditure account and the balance sheet were not filed. In response to this office show cause notice with regard to the work in progress, the assessee submitted as under : No details are available in regard to work in progress as on 31.03.2009 it was not possible to estimate or value the work in progress as on 31.03.2009. From the above submission it is clear that there is no basis for retraction. Thus, it is clear that there is no basis for retraction. Wihtout books of account or other documentary evidences, the assessee has retracted from his admission made in the hands of M/s Durga Bhavani Constructions. The A.O.without calling for the relevant material or without conducting any enquiry for collecting the required material or examining the material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r consideration i.e. 2010-11 made payment of ₹ 18,87,500/-, estimated the income at ₹ 2,35,938/- at 12.5% on 18,87,500/- and directed the AO to restrict the addition to ₹ 2,35,938/- in lieu of ₹ 27,00,437/- The relevant portion of Ld.CIT(A) order is extracted as under : Assessee is a builder. He conducts his business with the funds received from fiat owners. The business of the assessee is to locate sites for construction of flats, finalizing the deal with site owner, obtaining approved plan for construction of flats from municipality , publicizing for sale of fiats, spending receipts from flat owners towards site cost, construction of fiats etc. and utilization of his profit for personal purposes. Actually there is necessity to prepare two cash flow statements one for receipts from flat owners and utilization thereof and another for his profit and utilization thereof. In the returns submitted by assessee, only second type of cash flow statement was filed and cash flow statement in respect of receipts from flat owners and utilization thereof was not prepared and filed. However venture wise details were filed along with the return in place of consolidate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant and wait for completion of construction of building and subsequent sale to prospective buyers to get his balance (*substantial) amount of cost of site. It is obvious that there are inherent defects in the cash flow statement / reconciliation submissions made by appellant. Appellant did not produce evidence for making payments to site owners through account payee cheque / account payee drafts to ascertain the correct quantum of payment. In the absence of relevant details and supporting evidence, element of profit in site purchase cost cannot be ruled out. Site cost claimed to have been paid to site owners by appellant for Asst.Years 2009-10 2010-11 (as per appellant s submission before CIT during revision proceedings) is as follows : Asst.Year Site Cost 2009-10 Rs.1,97,16,000 2010-11 ₹ 18,87,500/- For both A.Ys. it totaled to Rs.2,16,03,500/- 5.5.1. However, during Asst.Year 2010-11, the amount received towards site purchase payment was ₹ 18,87,500/-. Hence, in my view, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
