9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld CIT(A) that confirmed the addition by holding that no land was purchased by assessee during the year. The plea of typographical error commission paid for land is self-serving statement of assessee and made to wriggle out of situation when the assessing officer pointed out the discrepancy. As noted earlier, before us, the ld AR for the assessee has vehemently argued that when genuineness of such expenses were not in doubt and expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of assessees business, same should be allowed and reasonableness of the expenditure has to be checked from the point of view of businessman. We are not convinced with the submissions of the ld AR for the assessee, when the commissions expense is wholly unreasonable and the assessee has taken such stand that the alleged commission was paid for purchase of land and in fact no such land was admittedly purchased during the year, the revenue authority cannot examine the reasonableness of the expenses on peculiar facts of the case. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the present case. In the result, this ground of appeal is also dismissed. Appeal of the assessee is dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der consideration, the assessee undertook a project in the name of Harmony-II . The assessee while filing its return of income has declared income at Rs.16,50,001/- for assessment year 2011-12. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that in the profit and loss account, the assessee has debited a sum of Rs.34,98,888/- on account of brokerage charges. The assessee was asked to furnish the details consisting the bills along with names of brokers. The assessee furnished certain details about the brokerage expenses. On perusal of such details, the Assessing Officer found discrepancies. The assessing officer noted that in case of one of the broker namely; Amit Pal, the cost of flats and the brokerage was missing; in case of Gunjan Mehta, a lump sum amount was shown without specifying flat number, rate of percentage of brokerage. Thus, by pointing out such discrepancies, the assessee was asked to furnish a chart showing name of brokerages, PAN No., flat No. in which they had assisted for sale, sale value of the flats, brokerage paid and the payment details. On furnishing such details, the Assessing Officer found that assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Steel Industries vs. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 285 (Cal); in the case of CIT vs. Keshavlal Chandulal (1966) 59 ITR 120 (Guj). On the basis of ratio of aforesaid decisions, the assessee submitted that the transaction of payment of commission is bona fide and genuine. The commission was paid for sale of flats to sole selling agents. The assessee also filed rectification letter for topographical mistake by taking plea that commission of brokerage include as commission for purchase of land. It was submitted the expenditure has to be judged from the point of view of the businessman and not the revenue. The taxing authority have no right to substitute the market price or average price in place of agreed price. On the basis of such submission, the assessee prayed for deleting the addition. 7. The ld CIT(A) summarised the submissions of assessee and forwarded to Assessing Officer for his comment vide order dated 27.12.2015. The Assessing Officer furnished his reply vide reply dated 10.02.2020. The contents of reply of assessing officer is recorded in para-5.2.2 of the order of Ld. CIT(A). In such reply; the Assessing Officer reported that ITO Ward-35(2)(3) was subsequently transferred the conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law and on fact by confirming the addition of Rs.23 lakhs by ignoring the merits of assessees submission? iii) Whether the order of Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and against the principle of natural justice? 10. We have heard the submissions of ld. AR for the assessee and Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that assessee is engaged in real estate and developer and during the assessment, the assessee submitted all details required before Assessing Officer and books of account is accepted by the Revenue Authority. During the period under consideration, the assessee undertook a real estate development project in the name of Harmony-II at Plot No.30, Sector-301, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra and said project was spread over period of time more than one year. During the year under consideration, the assessee paid brokerage commission of Rs.34,98,838/- to various persons and such payments were made through account payee cheque. The Assessing Officer made addition/ disallowance of Rs.23 lakhs by doubting reasonableness of expenses paid to unrelated parties. The commission expenses were incu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he addition of Rs.2,65,555/-, the ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that the Assessing Officer reasonably allowed the brokerage commission of Rs. 4,18,445/- for sale of flats for aggregate value of Rs.2.09 crores @ 2% which is generally accepted prevailing the brokerage commission rate in the real estate business and remaining amount of Rs. 2,65,555/- was disallowed. On the other addition / disallowance of Rs.23 lakhs, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that such brokerage commission has no nexus with the sale of assessees flats/ units, the total estimated value of constructed project was at Rs.8.77 crores and 75% is considered during the year and normal brokerage commission payment @ 2% would be hardly about Rs.13 lakhs. The brokerage commission bill placed by assessee before the Tribunal for the first time but was not filed before the lower authorities and no certificate of filing such documents is filed on record. All documents / evidence of brokerage commission are self-serving documents. The ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue prayed for upholding the order of lower authorities. 12. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
