9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al transaction was of Rs.18.22 crores, which it has grossly failed to establish, and most importantly, assessment order of the seller M/s Boss Gears Ltd., mentioned elsewhere clearly demonstrates that the sale consideration in the case of the seller has been accepted and by any stretch of imagination it cannot be accepted that the Assessing Officer of M/s Boss Gears Ltd. was unaware of the fact that survey operation was conducted at its premises during the financial year relevant to the Assessment Year considered by him while framing the said assessment order. We, therefore direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition - The grounds argued before us are allowed. - ITA No. 887/DEL/2020 - - - Dated:- 11-11-2022 - SHRI N. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 6. On perusal of the documents seized, it was noticed that the assessee has entered into MOU with M/s Boss Gears Ltd. on 02.09.2015 for purchase of land measuring 21m kanal 13 marla situated a Village Sikandarpur Badha, Gurgaon for Rs.18.22 crores. However, on perusal of registered deed of the said land dated 24.12.2015, it was noticed that the purchase consideration for this land was declared at Rs. 9,47,18,750/-. 7. During the course of search and seizure operation, these facts were confronted to Shri Gautam Bhatia, Managing Director of the assessee company when his statement was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. In his statement, Shri Gautam Bhatia accepted the transaction with M/s Boss Gears Ltd. for purchase of the said land and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. The assessee strongly agitated the matter before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success. 12. There is no denying that the said MOU along with Annexures A-1 to A-8 were Impounded during the course of survey operation u/s 133A of the Act from the business premises of M/s Boss Gears Ltd. Plot No. 606-607 JMP, Manesar, Sector-8, Gurgaon on 17.10.2016 which is evident from the impounding order exhibited at Page 32 of the Synopsis in Brief . 13. A perusal of the statement of Shri Yuvraj, CEO of M/s Boss Gears Ltd. shows that he has accepted the fact that M/s Boss Gear Ltd sold its land to Vatika Group. 14. Replying to the specific question relating to sale consideration of this transaction, Shri Yuvraj Kapuria categorically stated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s Boss Gears Ltd. for Assessment Year. 2016-17 which order dated 20.11.2018 has been framed u/s 144 of the Act wherein the Assessing Officer has categorically mentioned that : The assessee has also shown sale of immovable property at value Rs. 9,47,18,750/- and had adopted cost of acquisition with indexation at Rs. 1,26,90,432/- and cost of improvement with indexation a Rs. 64,21,405/-. In the absence of assessee s response he is left with no option as to how to check the accuracy of the computation. Still the assessment has to be completed, so I will no be unfair to exclude the cost of improvement in the absence of any reply submitted by the assessee. Hence the deductions u/s 48 is restricted to Rs. 1,26,90,432/- and the capital ga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and also by the Tribunal. Both concurrently were of the view that there was not enough evidence to add the amount in the hands of the assessed. XXXX 12. In so far as the present case is concerned, the assessed had stated that in fact there was no transfer of money between him and Ravi Talwar and Madhu Talwar. On the other hand, Ravi Talwar and Madhu Talwar had denied receipt of any money from the assessed. In the fact of these denials, there ought to have been corroborative evidence to show that there was in fact such a transfer of money. Both the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal have come to the conclusion that there was no such material on record. 13. The Assessing Officer reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rice shown in the sale deed. Sometimes, it may be higher and sometimes it may be lower. Sometimes intentionally a lesser value may be shown in the sale deed. Even if it is assumed to be so, unless it is proved that the agreement was acted upon and unless the amount stated in the agreement was paid for the sale, we cannot come to the conclusion that the price mentioned in the sale deed is not correct. In this case, further it is found that in the assessment of Pasha, it was finally found that the amount was received only at Rs. 8,000 per cent. It is taking into all these matters into consideration that the Tribunal held that the property was sold at the rate of Rs. 8,000 per cent. Thus, the Tribunal, on the basis of the facts and circumstanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
