9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1053X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Mukesh Jhaveri and admitted on money receipt - However, having gone through the remand report, the ld. CIT(A) recorded that the assessee firm never purchased any land from Mr. Sanjay Sharma. We are of the view that under Section 69 the onus is on the Assessing Officer to prove that the assessee made some unaccounted investment in purchase of property but in the present case, the Assessing Officer failed to discharge his onus and simply on guesswork, the addition was made. Since the Assessing Officer failed to pinpoint any instance by bringing any cogent and corroborative evidence on record where the assessee is found guilty of making payments to sellers over and above the value shown in the registered deed, the general remarks recorded by the Assessing Officer on the basis of presumption and assumption cannot be the basis for making the addition. Thus, we find that the ld. CIT(A), having made discussion on facts and relevant judicial pronouncements thereof, rightly held that the addition made is not based on any tangible evidence and there are no corroborative evidences in the hands of Revenue to substantiate the allegations of cash transaction - Decided against revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taking into consideration several factors and the value fixed for stamp duty gives an idea of market value, which is higher than guideline value, therefore, the assessee has suppressed the actual purchase price. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added the difference amount i.e. ₹ 10,08,02,000/-[₹ 19,08,96,000 ₹ 9,00,94,000] to the total income of the assessee treating the same as unaccounted investment u/s 69 of the I.T. Act. 3. Feeling dissatisfaction with the action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who on consideration of facts, circumstances, remand report called for from the Assessing Officer and assessee s submissions in the light of relevant judicial pronouncements deleted the addition. The discussion and findings thereof recorded by the ld. CIT(A) are part and partial of this order. However, for ready reference, the relevant portion of the order of the ld. CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder: 5.1 In view of the objection of the assessee about factual mistake committed by the Id AO by making double addition based on 'original' as well as ' photocopies' of same purchase deeds in few cases (whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge 78) and M-7(page 29 3. Lps 1/48(page 50) and M-I I (page 12) 4. Lps 1/48 (page 19) and M-ll(page 42), 5. Lps 1/48(page9) Ilnd M- \ I (page 2J.) Submitted for kind perusal and necessary action. 5.2 A copy of Remand Report was also provided to the Ld. AR of the appellant to file counter-comments or rejoinder. In response, Ld. AR vide order sheet entry dated 29.06.2018 has stated that report of Ld.AO is crystal clear and self explanatory, therefore no further comments are required. Discussion and appellate decision:- 6. All the details 1 material brought on record have been duly considered inter alia submission filed by the appellant. Due consideration has been given to the findings arrived at in the assessment order and remand report. Ground # 1 2 of the appeal are intrinsically linked and common to each other and essentially relating to addition made to the tune of ₹ 10,08,02,000/-_ on account of alleged suppression of purchase price relating to the lands purchased by the assessee firm. In the assessment order, Ld. AO has observed that during the year under consideration assessee firm had purchased lands admeasuring 14.258 hectare' or consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2018 has clearly stated that on verification of seized copies of registries it was found that there are photocopies of registry in LPS-1/48, M- 7 and M-1 and also found that the copies of registries are same with respect to registry amount, registry date and stamp paper serial numbers. Total 5 instances of duplicate Idouble registered documents as admitted by AO are as under:- [1] LPS 1/4S (pageS?) vis LPS MOl1 (page 32) .................................................................................... [2] LPS 1/48 (page78) and LPS M-7 (page 29) ..................................................................................... [3] LPS 1/48 (page50) and LPS M-11 (page 12) .................................................................................... [4] LPS 1/48 (page19) and LPS MOll (page 42) ................................................................................... [5] LPS 1/48 (page9) and LPS MOll (page 21) ................................................................................... Effects of duplicate registered deeds on the addition made by the Assessing Officer ............................................... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sold 18 Acres of lands to Shri Mukesh Jhaveri and admitted 'on money' receipt of ₹ 3,64,00,000/-. However, this is evident from details of lands purchased by the assessee provided by AO in remand report that assessee firm has never purchased any land from Shri Sanjay Sharma. Thus, his statement is not relevant in this case having no evidentiary value to draw any adverse inference against the appellant. This it is proved beyond doubt that Ld AO has re-opened the case and consequently made the addition on the basis of totally irrelevant material. It is also seen that Ld AO has neither cited any instance where assessee is found guilty of making payments to sellers over and above the registered value nor such generic remarks can be made basis of making such huge addition as done in this case. ld. AO has also made a passing reference that Jhaven Group have purchased lands in the name ot various concerns including M/s Gautamswami Enterprises at higher prices but in the registry, actual amount paid by them were not declared. This is a bald allegation made by AO without having brought any corroborative material on record; therefore such statements do not have any evidentiary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought to tax under provision of IT Act. This is an undisputed fact that all the properties have been purchased in F, Y 2011-12 (A. Y 2012-13) and at the relevant time, there was no deeming provision to make liable the buyers to pay tax as per guideline value of property as applicable in the case of sellers u/s 5OC of the Act. This is pertinent to mention that purchasers have been made liable to pay tax on differential amount i.e.aos per stamp valuation vis-a-vis shown in purchase deed w.e.f. 01.04.2014 i .e. A.Y. 2014- 15 by making necessary amendments in section 43CA and 56(2) (vii) (b) of the Act. Obviously, because the said transaction had taken place before 01,04,2014, assessee's case is not hit by the said provisions. Section 43CA and 50C are applicable in the case of the seller of an immovable property whereas section 56(2)(vii) (b) is applicable to purchasers of immovable property viz. Individual/ HUF. This is important to note that the assessee being firm, the said provision is not even applicable in instant case and even otherwise provision of section 56(2) (vii) (b) is applicable w.e.f. A.Y. 2014-15 only. Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of ITO v/s Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 33,01,200/- and in row no 9 the sale consideration was taken as ₹ 22,82,800/- instead correct amount of ₹ 22,42,800/- cumulative effect of this mistakes works out to a difference of ₹ 1,60,000/-. In view of the above it is manifestly clear that on merit no addition can be sustained and this being a mistake of clerical nature thus, the difference of ₹ 1,60,000/- is also deleted which is attributed to topographical error. In the result, entire amount of addition of ₹ 10,08,02,000/- is ordered to be deleted. Hence, ground of appeal # 1 2 are allowed. Feeling dissatisfaction with the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. CIT/DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee firm had purchased the land and on money was paid in cash over and above the price i.e. ₹ 9,00,94,000/- shown in the registered deed out of its unaccounted income. The guideline value of said land was ₹ 19,08,96,00/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer is justified in making an addition of difference of ₹ 10,08,02,000/- on account of cash payment made by the assessee from unaccounted i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Ahmedabad; 2017 7. Heirs and Legal Representatives of Late Laxmanbhai S. Patel vs CIT; High Court of Gujarat; 2008 Thus, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is justified. 6. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and gone through the material available on the file. We find that the ld. CIT(A), on consideration of facts and material available on record, observed that a glaring mistake was committed by the Assessing Officer while computing the differential amount between purchase cost shown in purchase deed and market value determined by Stamp Valuation Authority. During search, original purchase deed and photocopies thereof were found and seized and the Assessing Officer inadvertently taken into consideration both the documents i.e. original purchase deed and photocopies thereof treating the same two different and distinct documents. We find that during assessment proceedings in reply to the show-cause notice, the assessee also pointed out about the duplication of details but the Assessing Officer ignored the same and made the addition. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) called for the remand report from the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
