9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee completed the project well within time from 23.02.2007. In the result, appeal of Revenue in Ground No.1 and 2 are dismissed. Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- Almost in all cases substantial payments are made by cheques. Therefore, there is no logic to treat those advances as unexplained. Before us assessee also explained that all amounts were received as advance. The assessee executed sale deeds of various units / flats, copy of sale deeds are placed before us. We find that the ld. CIT(A) passed the order after considering all those documentary evidences. Before passing the order the ld.CIT(A) granted opportunity to the AO to furnish his remand report. In the remand report, the AO made a general remark despite the fact that the complete details were available on the registered sale deeds. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition under section 68 - Decided in favour of assessee. Unexplained deposits - HELD THAT:- No adverse material is brought against the documentary evidence nor was any contrary submission made by the ld. DR for the revenue. Therefore, keeping in view that the sale d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in the case of assessee was completed on 01.10.2010, thus, the assessee has not fulfilled the condition prescribed under section 80IB(10) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee was issued show cause notice dated 24.10.2014 as to why the deduction under section 80IB(10) should not be disallowed. The assessee filed her reply on 13.01.2014. The contents of reply filed by assessee is extracted by the AO in para 3.3 of the assessment order. In the reply, the assessee contended that initial permission for development of project was granted by Surat Urban Development Authority (SUDA) on 05.02.1997 has nothing to do with the project completed by assessee. The assessee further stated that father of assessee acquired the land on which project is undertaken by the assessee. It was clarified that in the sale deed back history of ownership and nature of the land is described, which has nothing to do with the claim of the assessee and the same was mentioned for the purpose of transfer of land only. The assesse applied for development of housing project only on 11.06.2006. The Revenue Department of district administration granted permission for housing land for non-agricultural purpose on 12.07 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(A) by following the order of his predecessor allowed the deduction under section 80IB(10). 7. So far as addition under section 68 of the Act is concerned, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹ 1,23,05,311/- and sustained the addition to the extent of ₹ 47,86,500/-. The ld.CIT(A) while partly deleting the addition under section 68 of the Act to the extent of ₹ 1,23,05,311/- held that the advances claimed were matching with the payment details with registered sale documents of various units sold by the assessee and that the documents of sales are registered with Government Authorities, wherein PAN number of purchaser and other details regarding the payments are mentioned. The advances were made for purchase of property and that property is legally transferred. The ld. CIT(A) also held no seller of property would reasonably be expected to ask for source from the purchaser of its property , thus, it was held that addition of such advances were unjustified. For remaining amount of ₹ 47,86,500/-, the ld.CIT(A) concluded that there are various advances claimed, but are the any variance with the payments as per registered documents and that no explana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne through the orders of authorities below. 12. Ground No.1 and 2 of Revenue s Appeal relates to deleting the disallowance under section 80IB(10) of the Act. The Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that the date of sanction of project from Surat Development Authority as on 05.02.1997 is gathered by the A.O. from the sale deeds of the land where the assessee undertaken the development of project. The sale deed of the land was furnished by assessee. The said permission was granted to earlier owners. The assessee has not fulfilled the condition laid down in section 80IB(10) of the Act has the completion of project was not within Four (04) years from 01.04.2004 as laid down under section 80IB(10) of the Act. However, on confronting the fact that the ld.CIT(A) granted relief on the basis of order of his predecessor, the Sr. DR for the revenue fairly conceded that in appeal for A.Y.2010-11 on similar disallowance the order of ld.CIT(A) for A.Y. 2010-11 was confirmed by the Tribunal in ITA No.2269/AHD/2014 dated 12.04.2017. The ld. Sr. DR for revenue further fairly conceded that against the order of the Tribunal the appeal of revenue is dismissed by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in assessee s case for A.Y. 2010-11 on identical set of facts, on identical grounds of appeal and respectfully following the same, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) wherein the ld.CIT (A) followed the order of his predecessor for A.Y. 2010-11, thus, we affirm the order of Ld. CIT(A). Moreover, the AO has not disputed the fact that the sanction of development of housing project was granted to the assessee only on 23.02.2007 and that the assessee completed the project well within time from 23.02.2007. In the result, appeal of Revenue in Ground No.1 and 2 are dismissed. 16. Ground No.3 and 4 in Revenue s appeal relates to deleting the addition under section 68 of the Act to the extent of ₹ 1.23 crore. The assessee in her cross appeal has also raised grounds against the part sustaining the addition of ₹ 47,86,500/-. The Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that during the assessment the AO asked the assessee to furnish complete details the parties from whom the assessee has received advances. The assessee did not furnish complete details, PAN, address and confirmations. Before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount 1 Anand Vashi 15,95,000 2 Ravishankar Ratanlal Agarwal 5,00,000 3 Sandeep Poonamiya 17,21,500 4 Arivnd Dave 5,00,000 5 Kanti Praful Tayal and Dhirubhai 4,50,000 20,000 Total 47,86,500 19. The AR for the assessee further explained that flat A-801 was transferred to Anand Vashi on sale consideration of ₹ 15,95,000/- vide registered sale dated 08.02.2012, copy of sale with relevant page of English Translation at page is filed, which is available at page No.201A and 201B of paper book. The AR for the assessee further submits that the registration of flat was completed on 08.02.2012 and the assessee has offered the profit in subsequent relevant assessment year, which has been accepted by revenue. In support of his submissions, the AR relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e gone through the orders of the Lower Authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on various case laws relied by ld. AR for the assessee. The AO made addition under section 68 by taking view that assessee not furnished complete details of various investors/booking and that in absence of complete details the deposits were unverifiable and made addition of entire amount. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee stated that the money was received on account of booking of flats. The assessee furnished details of all parties who booked their various units. The assessee also stated that project was undertaken by a lady and she hardly knew anything about accounts and she was solely relied on the Accountant. The accountant of assessee left the assessee and complete papers and details could not be furnished to the AO. The assessee persuaded the accountant to come back and prepare the details. On compiling the complete details by the accountant, the assessee furnished the list of all investors and also filed applications for admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A under Income Tax Rules. The additional evidence of assessee was referred to AO for furnishing his remand report. The AO f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l evidence. In the application for additional evidence the assessee has stated that during the first appellate proceeding the assessee could not lay her hand on the registered sale deed, though bookings deposits were lying at credit in her books of accounts. Copy of registered sale deed dated 03.11.2012 is also placed on record. Perusal of registered sale deed, copy of which is available at page no.341 to 367, the copy of relevant part of English Translation is also filed. No adverse material is brought against the documentary evidence nor was any contrary submission made by the ld. DR for the revenue. Therefore, keeping in view that the sale deed is registered before Government Authorities and has direct relevance with the fact in issue, therefore the additional evidence admitted. Considering the evidence in the form of registered sale deed in favour of Sandeep Poonamiya for purchase of flat No. B-502, we are in principle agree that the assessee has fully explained this deposit. Thus, we direct the AO to verify the facts and delete this addition of ₹ 17,21,500/-. Hence, this part of addition is allowed for statistical purpose. 24. Now coming to the addition of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
