9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certificate was issued for part completion of the project dated 15th of December 2011 and the final certificate for the completion of the project was issued dated 22 March 2012. Thus from the final certificate issued by the competent authority for the completion of the entire project, it is established that there was the no violation of the provisions of law as specified under the provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act. At the time of hearing, the learned DR has not brought anything on record contrary to the finding of the learned CIT (A). No reason to interfere in the order of the learned CIT (A). Thus the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Treating the income from regular business holding that the same is eligible for deduction under section 80IB(10) - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the assessee is not engaged in any activity other than the construction activity as discussed above. Moreover, the revenue has not brought anything on record evidencing that such income disclosed during the survey proceedings is not arising from its construction activity. As such the onus was upon the revenue to disprove the contention of the assessee based on the documentary evidence. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utside the books of accounts. Thus the AO treated the same as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under: 4.2 I have perused the assessment order and the written submission. The Id. AR contended that the AO has carried out verification of complete books and supporting documents/evidences/proofs/vouchers etc and not a single adverse inference was drawn to establish that there existed unaccounted expenditure. The Id. AR also emphasized the fact that, survey was carried out and barring certain irregularities in recording transactions, nothing glaring was found by the survey team. In order to cover up these errors and omissions, the appellant had also made disclosure of ₹ 75 lacs, which is already incorporated in the books of accounts. I find that the AO in the assessment order specifically mentioned at para 2 that the appellant has furnished all the necessary details and produced books of account from time to time and were test checked. Therefore, there is no basis for resorting to estima ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not universal rates and cannot be applied to any random case without taking into consideration the merits and the nature of property, quality of construction, quantum of material, and other amenities etc. used in the construction. In fact the jantri rates are prescribed for the purpose of collection of stamp duty and are for deemed fair market value on given date and not for any other purpose. Jantri rates are common for a small house as well as for a luxurious bungalow containing various kinds of amenities. Thus, application of jantri rate for determination of cost of construction in any individual case that too meant for lower income group housing project in the present case would be an absurd proposition. I find substantial force in this argument of the AR of the appellant. Also, the jantri schedule so adopted by the AO is as on 18.04.2011 and this rate would be applicable in the cases of transaction which takes place after that date. Again, this does not indicate cost of construction in the hands of the seller but average FMV for the purpose of stamp duty collection. Hence, the finding of the AO is erroneous on this score too because, under the income tax proceedings the jantri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provisions of section 69C of the Act are attracted in a situation where the assessee has incurred an expense without recording the same in the books of accounts. In the present case there is no iota of evidence available before the AO suggesting that the assessee has incurred any expense which were not disclosed in the books of accounts except the value of the Jantri determined by the superintendent of stamps. 6.1 We also note that there was the survey operations carried out under section 133A of the Act and no details was found during the survey operation suggesting that there was the expenses incurred by the assessee outside the books of accounts. 6.2 Thus in the absence of any information, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (A). Hence the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 7. The 2nd issue raised by the revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO by withdrawing the deduction under section 80IB of the Act for ₹ 6,82,21,445/-. 8. The AO during the assessment proceedings observed that the assessee has obtained certificates 3 times for partly completion of the project on different dates. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 32 to 36/1 to 10 10 -- 10 -- 10 37 to 46/1 to 15 15 14 1 -- 15 47 to 62/1 to 27 27 24 3 -- 27 63 to 8/1 to 10 10 -- -- 10 10 Total 110 73 27 10 110 5.3.1 In fact, the AO herself vide para 4 of order u/s 154 dated 11.06.2015 has accepted the clarificatory letter dated 30.01.2015 of RMC. As far as the case law relied on by the AO, the facts are totally distinguishable. In the case of Sky Builders and Developers. 14 taxmann.com 78(lndore) the facts were that the assessee sold plots to respective customers by registering a sale deed and thereafter assesee constructed bui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oject was issued dated 22 March 2012. Thus from the final certificate issued by the competent authority for the completion of the entire project, it is established that there was the no violation of the provisions of law as specified under the provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act. At the time of hearing, the learned DR has not brought anything on record contrary to the finding of the learned CIT (A). Hence we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the learned CIT (A). Thus the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 12. The last issue raised by the revenue is that the learned CIT (A) erred in treating the income of ₹ 75 lacs as income from regular business and accordingly holding that the same is eligible for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. 13. The assessee during the survey proceedings made a disclosure of ₹ 75 lakhs of income which was not treated by the AO as income from the regular business activity. Accordingly the AO disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee with respect to such income under the provisions of section 80IB (10) of the Act. 14. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
