9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion made by the AO merely on presumptions and surmises is not sustainable. We find the website does not give the rate as to whether it is carpet area or built up area or super built up area or the amenities, the quality of construction, special locational benefits and other value added facilities, etc. Nothing has been mentioned about the responsible person for contact or any address, as per the snapshot shown in the assessment order. Even the post search enquiry also does not reveal any on money paid by any of the investor. Assessee has already demonstrated that these are two independent units sold to two different persons and in fact the assessee has sold the above two flats @ Rs. 6000/- per sq. ft. Whereas the average price of the two flats comes to Rs. 5000/- per sq. ft. We, therefore, find merit in the argument of the assessee that the same cannot be the basis for making huge addition by adopting the rate of Rs. 8,075/- per sq. ft. Since, there is no iota of evidence that the assessee has received any extra money over and above the booking rate shown by the assessee in the books of account, addition in our opinion is based on surmises, conjectures and presumption. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Nagpur and the difference in amount was paid to the said Mr. Naresh Grover. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer enquired from various persons who had booked the unit in the tower and almost all the persons had confirmed the price at which it was recorded in the books of account. The confirmation from Mr. Naresh Grover was also filed. 6. However, while framing the assessment for Assessment Year 2011-12, the Assessing Officer, in spite of such information available on record, proceeded to frame the assessment, thereby applying Rs. 9,500/- per sq foot being rate available on the website, out of which 15% rebate had been allowed as discount and the net rate applied by the Assessing Officer was worked out at Rs. 8,075/- per sq foot. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer, after applying such rate of Rs. 8,075/- to the area booked, had made the addition in the hands of the appellant. 6.1 The CIT (Appeals), after examining all the evidences available on record as well as the enquiry made by the Assessing Officer, had deleted the addition in Assessment Year 2011-12. 6.2 On appeal filed by the Revenue, the ITAT vide order dated 28th July 2021 affirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings, all the buyers from whom the enquiries were made have confirmed to have given the amount as duly recorded in the books of the appellant. (iv) The contention of the AO stating that the buyers did not admit to have made such payment in cash as it is beneficial to both the parties have no basis. (v) As far as the veracity of rate quoted in the alleged website of the appellant, the appellant denied to have owned the same and was not in the knowledge of the appellant. In the website, the rate has been given at Rs. 9,500/- per square foot for that project of the appellant. However, it is not mentioned in the website that whether it is for the carpet area, built-up area or super built-up area. The amenities include quality of construction, special locational benefits and other value added facilities have not been mentioned in the website. (vi) Nothing has been mentioned about the responsible person for contract or any address as per the snapshot shown in the assessment order. Therefore, whether it is launched by the appellant or by Mr. Sanjay Singh will not make any difference as any rate quoted in general cannot be made the basis for addition on presumption basis, mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allege to have paid unaccounted cash towards on money . 18.1. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue of deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. It is an admitted fact that this is the first year of the operation of the company and during the course of search no cogent or corroborative evidence was found to substantiate the receipt of on money from any of the buyers. Further, no cash, jewellery or other valuables or investment was found. We, therefore, find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee that had such huge amount been received at the time of booking of flats in cash as alleged by the Assessing Officer, then some short of unaccounted cash, jewellery or other valuables or investment would have been found whereas nothing of that short has been found. 19. So far as the website is concerned, quoting the rates @ 9,500/- per sq. ft. per se in our opinion cannot be sacrosanct in absence of any other corroborative or cogent evidence found during the course of search. The buyers to whom the space has been sold have confirmed the rate as declared by the assessee in its books of accounts. Merely say ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be the basis for making huge addition by adopting the rate of Rs. 8,075/- per sq. ft. 21. We also find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee that as per the guidance note issued by the ICAI in AS-9, income has to be shown on percentage completion method if the assessee company has sold at least 25% of the total salable area or had received 10% of the total realisable value of the project. Since, the Assessing Officer in the instant case has himself noticed that the assessee has booked less than 25% of the area during the year (booking of 295000 sq. ft. out of 17,38,000 sq. ft.) and has not realised 10% of the project cost, therefore, he is not justified in assuming that the whole amount is taxable in the year under consideration. Since, there is no iota of evidence that the assessee has received any extra money over and above the booking rate shown by the assessee in the books of account and the entire addition in our opinion is based on surmises, conjectures and presumption, therefore, in view of the above discussion and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the learned CIT(A) on this issue, we do not find any infirmity in his order deleting th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
