9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt material to demonstrate whether these flats sold by the assessee were identical in nature to Flat No.2. Moreo er, no enquiry has been conducted with the buyer of the flat to ascertain whether any on-money was paid by him for purchasing the flat. Without making any enquiry or bringing material on record to establish the fact that the assessee has received any amount over and above the declared sale consideration, no addition could have been made when it is accepted that section 43CA meant for such deemed addition, is not applicable to the subject transaction. Once CIT (Appeals) concluded that section 43CA was not applicable to the subject transaction, there is no reason for him to sutain the addition on different reasoning - no hesitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority should not be added u/s 43CA of the Act. Though the assessee objected to the proposed addition; however, the assessing officer, rejecting the objection of the assessee, added back the amount of ₹ 6,83,500/- u/s 43CA of the Act. Assessee contested aforesaid addition before the first appellate authority. 4. In the proceedings before the first appellate authority, the assessee urged a preliminary ground that th provisions of section 43CA having introduced into the statute by Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01-04-2014, would not be applicable to the transaction relating to the sale of a flat which was concluded upon registration on 23-04-2013, i.e. much before section 43CA came into effect. Apparently, Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - made by the assessing officer. 5. Ld.Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee, in detail, has explained the reason of difference between the valuation of the Stamp Duty Authority and the declared sale consideration. Further, he submitted, the consideration for sale of flat was mutually agreed upon as per the market value prevailing at the time of booking of the flat, in the year 2011 whereas the sale deed was registered in 2013 and the Stamp Duty Authority has considered the market value as prevailing in 2013 which resulted in difference. Therefore, there cannot be any addition on account of alleged understatement of value of flat. Further, he submitted, once Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has accepted assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of housing project in this year; (ii) Genuineness of various expenditure claimed by the assessee could not be ascertained; and (iii) Some other flats in the sam project have been sold for a higher rate. Thus, as can be see, Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), while sustaining the addition made by the assessing officer u/s 43CA of the Act has gone into completely new arena which was never subject matter of the assessment proceedings. Thus, in effect, Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has introduced a new source of disallowance during the appellate proceedings. Though he has doubted the gnuineness of expenditure claimed,he has not made any direct disallowance of expenditure. Further, the allegation that some flats ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
