9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 926X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant seized document belonging to the assessee along with satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer of the searched person, have been received on 05/04/2013 and therefore assessment proceedings u/s 153C should have been initiated only from assessment year 2008-09 to assessment year 2013-14. Thus, assessment year under consideration was not to be completed u/s 153C of the Act. In our considered opinion, there is no error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in following the binding precedent of the jurisdictional High Court. Profit earned from sale of land transaction - development agreement between the assessee company and another associated company M/s Parasvnath Developers Ltd., the assessee purchased certain lands at Jodhpur in the assessment year 2006-07, which were subsequently developed and sold by M/s Parasvnath Developers Ltd. - HELD THAT:- We find that the Assessing Officer has not disputed the fact that M/s Parasvnath Developers Ltd. has declared profit in their books of account on sale of the land developed by them under the development agreement with the assessee, though the land remained registered in the name of the assessee. This profit declared has been assessed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 39112550/- by relying on the ratio o f the judgement delivered by the Jurisdiction High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 which has not been accepted by the department and the appeal is pending before the Apex Court. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 88,71,950/- by relying on the documents furnished during the course of appellate proceedings, that were never produced before the AO so as to enable him an opportunity to examine the relevant documents filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 10,00,000/- by relying on the documents furnished during the course of appellate proceedings, that were never produced before the AO so as to enable him an opportunity to examine the relevant documents filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the limitation period of six years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the date of handing over/recording of satisfaction u/s 153C, as per proviso of sec. 153C(1) of the Act. The appellant has submitted that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of M/s SDS group of companies on 25.03.2011. During the search operation of the said third party, certain documents belonging to the appellant were found and seized. These documents pertain to alleged transactions of purchase ahd sale of land in District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. The AO of the searched person, vide letter dated 29.03.2013, handed over copies of the seized documents and statements recorded which were received by the AO of the appellant on 05.04.2013. In the assessment as well as in the appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant contended that since the AO has received the satisfaction note of the AO of the searched person along with relevant seized documents only on 05.04.2013, therefore the assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act can be initiated only from AVs 2008-09 to 2013-14, as per the provisions of sec. 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act. In support of the above argu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of M/s SDS Group of Companies, i.e., six assessment years corresponding to the previous years immediately prior to the previous year in which search was conducted. Whereas, the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of RRJ Securities Ltd. (supra) held that wherever seized documents belonging to third-party have been found during the course of the search, then for assessment under section 153C of the Act has to be taken for six assessment years corresponding to the previous years prior to the previous year in which such seized material/document along with satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer of the search person are received by the Assessing Officer of the assessee. In the case of the assessee, relevant seized document belonging to the assessee along with satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer of the searched person, have been received on 05/04/2013 and therefore assessment proceedings u/s 153C should have been initiated only from assessment year 2008-09 to assessment year 2013-14. Thus, assessment year under consideration was not to be completed u/s 153C of the Act. In our considered opinion, there is no error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in following the binding p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts return of income filed. Accordingly, he after verifying sales of developed plots, made addition for profit amounting to ₹ 1,87,19,545/-, which has been computed as under: (viii) For the above reasons the contention of the assessee is not accepted and profit from sale of this land is computed in the hands of the assessee. The assessee had bought 47 bighas of land for a total price of ₹ 1,46,43,770/-. As per information gathered bigha of land consists of 3,020 sq. yds. Therefore, the cost per sq. yd. is computed below: Total no. of yds in 47 bighs -47 X 3025 = 1,42,175 Sq. yds Cost per sq. yd. -1,46,43,770/142175 = ₹ 103 per sq. yd. Total area of plots sold = 1,100 sq. yds. Total cost of plot sold 3600 X 103 = ₹ 370,800 As no evidence with regard to development cost has been brought on the record, ₹ 3,70,800/- is taken as the cost of sale. Profit from sale of land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch land of 47.01 bighas was purchased in the FY 2005-06 relevant to the AY 2006-07. But the land was held on behalf of M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd., and no sale of land had been made by the appellant during the years since then, or in the year presently under consideration. The said land has continuously been shown as work in progress in the books of the appellant up until the AY 2012- 13. The appellant has affirmed that besides the said land admeasuring 47.01 bjghas, it has not purchased any other land, and also has not sold any land. The AIR information that has been received in respect of purchase and sale of land made in district Jodhpur, Rajasthan, for assessment year 2012-13 pertains to sale of plots by M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd. 5.2. The AR has submitted that the appellant had entered into an agreement with M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited on 01.09.2006, as per which, M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited was to make an advance to the appellant company to purchase, or arrange to purchase land in village Bansi, Jodhpur. The appellant had accordingly purchased 47.01 bighas of land on behalf of M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited. The appellant, even though it was the regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Purchase/Sale/ adjustment /transfer Cl. WIP Purchase Sale Cl. WIP 06-07 1,46,43,770 47.01 bigha (i.e. 44 bigha and 61 biswa) however, development rights have been transferred to the developer company 47.01 bigha 1,46,43,770 47.01 bigha 3,03,71,900 60.15 bigha Total land alleged to be purchased 107.15 bigha 107.15 bigha @ 20 lacs per bigha on which profit of ₹ 17,04,84,330/- calculated and addition was made 07-08 - 47.01 bigha - - - 08-09 - 47.01 bigha - - - 09-10 47.01 bigha 31,06,700/- Purchase of 4700 sq yds 31,06,700/- 4700 sq yds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
