9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... because section 43CA has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2013, w.e.f. 1.4.2014. The AO has not pointed out any defect in the books of account and has merely rejected the books of account on the basis of lower sale consideration being received for the ground floor property as compared to first floor property. This is not permissible in law, because there has to be some concrete evidence to come to the conclusion that assessee has not declared his full sale consideration. Reliance placed by ld. counsel for the assessee on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Raman & Co. [1967 (7) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] clearly support the assessee’s contention. - decided in favour of assessee. - ITA no. 1958/Del/2015 Asstt. Yr: 2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the circle rate on which stamp duty of ₹ 2.34 lakhs was paid was ₹ 34.90,000/-. The AO further noticed that on 17.4.2009the assessee had reported sale of first floor of plot no. Nitikhand-I/913, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, having covered area of 110 sq. mtr. For a consideration of ₹ 34,10,000/-. As the assessee had shown the sale of ground floor for ₹ 22,50,000/- as against the first floor property being ₹ 34,10,000/-, within a period of six months, the AO show caused the assessee as to why the trading results be not rejected u/s 145 and the income be assessed at a reasonable estimate. The AO has noticed the assessee s contention as under: The assessee contended that the property under sale was held as stock ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not be sold for a higher price, therefore, in order to lower the burden of bank loans and interest thereon, the assessee concluded the sale at a lesser price. In the subject period, there was a time gap of six months in which the property price had gone down. He relied on following decisions: - ITA nos. 1089 1090/2011 in the case of CIT Vs. Discovery Estates Pvt. Ltd. judgment dated 18.2.2013 (Delhi High Court). - CIT Vs. A. Raman Co. 67 ITR 11 (SC) 6. With reference to above decisions, ld. counsel submitted that department cannot ask the assessee to maximize his profits. 7. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and have perused the record of the case. The facts are not disputed. Admittedly the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gard to the facts. (c) The assessee has given reasons as to why it booked sales at the initial stage at a lower price. It was found that the assessee could not book a single shop for sale in the year 2004 and during the period from May 2003 to December 2004, it could book only five shops for sale. These factors suggest that in the beginning of the business, the assessee is forced to offer some concession in the price to draw custom. (d) The Assessing Officer could have brought evidence on record to show that any purchaser had actually paid a price higher than the price shown in the books. No such evidence was forthcoming. There was not even material to doubt the sale transactions. (e) It is not permissible for the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
