9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly considered the advances received by the assessee during March 2016 for the sale of 4 plots and accordingly has directed the Ld. AO to adopt the Fair Market Value as on the date of the agreement between the assessee and the vendees. We are therefore in concurrence with the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and find that no interference is required in the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and this ground no.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. CIT(A) violated the provisions of Rule 46A by not providing an opportunity to the Ld. AO to examine the fresh evidence - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) in his order has observed that the advance amount was recorded in the sale deeds which was available before the Ld. AO at the time of assessment proceedings. In the absence of any additional evidence filed before the Ld. CIT(A), we find that there is no requirement of complying with the provisions of Rule 46A by the Ld. CIT (A) and hence we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has acted within his powers. Addition towards alleged on-money - AO has relied on the loose sheets as per the screen shot available - HELD THAT:- We find that the loose sheets, extracted as screen shot in the Ld. AO s order, are un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 25/2/2021 calling for the return of income. As there was no response, another notice U/s. 142(1) was issued calling for the information along with the detailed questionnaire. In response to the notice U/s. 142(1), the assessee partly submitted the information as required by the Ld. AO on 11/9/2021. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that it has filed its return of income on 26/8/2021 at the e-filing portal but the Ld. AO observed that the assessee has not verified the return electronically / physically. During the course of search at the registered premises of the assessee, the Ld. AO noticed that certain incriminating material was found and seized vide Annexure-A/VBPL/OFFICE/02 regarding the sale of land admeasuring 1250.83 sq yds at Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam. The Director of the company Sri Datla Raghava Raju was required to explain about the details of sale where he has submitted the sale documents. The Ld. AO on perusal of the sale documents submitted by the Director observed that the assessee has sold land into 4 parts to 4 buyers for a consideration of Rs. 46,90,315/- each aggregating to Rs. 1,87,62,450/-. The Ld. AO found that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome on 26/8/2021 to the notice u/s. 153A issued on 25/2/2021 and the same was e-verified on 19/9/2021 ie a few days before the due date for finalization of search assessment, during which period the minimum time of 15 days required for the assessee to comply to a notice U/s. 143(2) was not available. (ii) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee company had never furnished any such alleged agreement between the parties in the month of March, 2016 for verification with regard to the addition made U/s. 50C of Rs. 37,53,540/- during the course of assessment proceedings and this fact was clearly mentioned in para 6.7 of the assessment order. Accordingly, there is a clear infringement of Rule 46A as the AO has not been provided with an opportunity to examine the fresh evidence. (iii) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that there was a clear documentary evidence in the form of material seized from the residence of Director of the company, wherein the contents were also clear about the property and the registered sale price exactly matched with the amount mentioned under the column while though the dates were not mentioned in the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he date of registration of the sale deed for making the addition U/s. 50C of the Act while framing the assessment U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act. The Ld. AO has merely relied on the loose sheets seized during the search operations. The Ld. AO also failed to record any corroborative evidences in his findings with respect to the additions made by him. The fact that the advance received by the assessee is mentioned in the sale deed entered into by the assessee was ignored by the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO has merely relied on the date of registration of sale deed while making the addition U/s. 50C of the Act which was registered during December, 2016 and January, 2017. Since the agreement to sell has been entered into as early as March 2016, and the consideration agreed and advance of Rs. 80,00,000/- has been received by the assessee, the delay in registering the sale deed, and in the mean time increase in the value for the purposes of Section 50C, shall not alter the agreed consideration. The Ld. CIT(A) has rightly considered the advances received by the assessee during March 2016 for the sale of 4 plots and accordingly has directed the Ld. AO to adopt the Fair Market Value as on the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd. We find that the loose sheets, extracted as screen shot in the Ld. AO s order, are undated and no details like date of payment or to whom the amount was paid is not mentioned in the loose sheets. Further, the sale deeds executed by the assessee clearly mentions the consideration received and admitted by the assessee while filing the return of income. The Ld.CIT(A) in para 7.2 of his order relied on the case of Sri Badam Bhogalinga Swamy and others of the jurisdictional Bench of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 6 to 10/Viz/2021. We reproduce herein below the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on this ground: 7.2 From the loose sheet as was submitted by the counsel it cannot be ascertained as to the details of payments and date of payment and to whom the amount was paid as was pointed out by the appellant. It was brought to my notice the consideration admitted by the appellant is clearly appearing in the registered sale deeds and hence under the circumstances there is no merit in ignoring the value appearing on the registered sale deeds and considering the amount appearing in the loose sheet that does not contain any relevant details. In the case of ACIT, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d No.4 regarding the addition of Rs. 31,40,000/-, the Ld. AO again relied on the seized Annexure A/DVR/VSP/02 which mentions Rs. 31,40,000/- as Black Money received. We have adjudicated Ground No.3 in the preceding paragraphs of this order where the Ld. AO has relied on the dumb document while making additions. The Ld. CIT(A) again relying on the jurisdictional Bench in the case of Badam Bhogalinga Swamy Others (supra) has deleted the addition and hence we find no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this ground. 11. Ground No.5 is general in nature and therefore needs no adjudication. 12. Ground No.1 with respect to legal issue where the Ld. AO has not issued notice U/s. 143(2) raised by the Revenue needs no adjudication as this Bench has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on merits. 13. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 14. With respect to Cross Objection raised by the assessee, since it is supportive in nature to the decision of the Ld. CIT(A), considering the outcome of the Revenue s appeal the adjudication of the Cross Objections becomes infructuous. Pronounced in the open Court on the 29th March, 2023. - - TaxTMI - TMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
