TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has neither appeared before us nor has furnished any documentary evidence to controvert the factual findings of the Departmental Authorities. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in sustaining the addition Inclusion of certain loans and advances in the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of profits from sale of flats - Held that:- On a perusal of the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) it is seen that the aforesaid claim of the assessee was duly verified not only by him but also by the Assessing Officer in remand and it was found that such amount represents sale consideration of flats, hence, part of the profit earned by the assessee. Of cours ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of material on record. 3. Grounds no.1 to 11 are on the common issue of addition of ₹ 2,63,05,675, as profit from sale of flats in a housing projects. 4. Brief facts are, the assessee a partnership firm is engaged in the business of builder and developer. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 26th September 2009, declaring nil income. During the assessment proceedings, to a query raised by the Assessing Officer assessee submitted that in the relevant previous year the assessee has not effected sales of any flat in a housing project styled as Lok Milan Project . However, the Assessing Officer being not convinced wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rior to 31st March 2008 in many cases. Thus, from the aforesaid facts the Assessing Officer concluded that the buildings in C Wing of the housing project were completed in the impugned assessment year and the assessee has sold all the flats in this building to the respective buyers. Thus, he treated the advances received shown by the assessee at ₹ 8,45,01,106, as sale consideration received by the assessee and after reducing the work in progress shown of ₹ 5,81,95,741, determined the net profit at ₹ 2,63,05,675, which was added to the income of the assessee. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid addition, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. In course of proceedings before the learned Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rongly relying upon the observations of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) submitted that the assessee at no stage has been able to demonstrate that the so called advances received by it from flat purchasers are in reality not sale consideration. Thus, he submitted that the addition made deserves to be upheld. 7. We have considered the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. As could be seen from the facts on record, though, the assessee has claimed that the amount of ₹ 8,45,01,416 is in the nature of advance only, however, on the basis of enquiry made by the Assessing Officer at the assessment stage and subsequently during remand material have been brought on record which clearly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been treated as profits of business and further an amount of ₹ 57,42,000 included in the said sum is a loan from Bank of Rajasthan and assessee itself has offered it as income in the assessment year 2013 14, however, on a perusal of the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) it is seen that the aforesaid claim of the assessee was duly verified not only by him but also by the Assessing Officer in remand and it was found that such amount represents sale consideration of flats, hence, part of the profit earned by the assessee. Of course, as regards assessee s claim that a part of the amount was offered as income in assessment year 2013 14, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the assessee may make a suit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|