9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1048X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rayed that the brokerage is paid only after complete receipt of sales consideration or after the date of registry. In this case, it is noted that the sale agreement was entered on 25-03- 2013 (PB No. 43-47) on receipt of payment advance of Rs. 5.00 lacs. However it was decided by the parties that complete payment would be paid within 3 years and thus thereafter the registered sale deed got executed on 22-06-2023 which is registered before the Registering Authority and thus the brokerage was paid by the assessee on completion of the job. Thus no justification in the orders of the lower authorities to make disallowance as it is a mutual agreement between the purchaser and broker to get the deal done. It is also noteworthy to mention from the affidavit of the assessee Shri Ashok Singh that he had paid brokerage in cash to the above mentioned five persons. Hence, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the brokerage amount is allowed. - Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM And Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, AM For the Assessee : Shri Arpit Vijay, C.A For the Revenue : Shri A.S. Nehra,Addl.CIT ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,91,36,980/- may not be taken as sale consideration of the property in view of the provisions of Section 50C of I.T. Act. The AO further requested the assessee to submit some other details relating to long term capital gain transaction and the assessee was required to furnish complete details of brokerage expenses claimed by the assessee. It is also worth mentioning that the AO made an addition of Rs. 9,78,500/- on the ground that none of the person to whom brokerage payment had been claimed to have been made had signed at any place in the registered sale document or initial sale agreement. The relevant observation at page 4 5 as to making addition by the AO towards brokerage payment of Rs. 9,78,500/- in the hands of the assessee is reproduced as under:- I have considered the documents filed by the assessee. On consideration of the documents filed and facts of the case as available from the documents filed by the assessee, following facts emerges:- (i) The assessee claimed that the agreement to sale of land was made on 25.03.2013, copy of this agreement on Rs. 100/- stamp paper was also filed. In this agreement there is no reference of any broker in the sale transaction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Name Address Amount 1 Shri Sita Ram Jat Jai Nagar, Todavata, Kakanriya Ki Dhani, Phagi, Chittora, Renwal, Jaipur 1,95,000/- 2. Shri Prahlad Chittora, Renwal, Jaipur 1,95,000/- 3. Shri Sukhdev 229, Kumharo Ka Mohalla, Chittora, Phagi, Jaipur 1,95,000/- 4. Shri Mohan Lal Gurjar 36, Gurjaro Ka Mohalla, Balkhandiya, Tonk, Jaipur 1,95,000/- 5. Shri Mukesh Kumar Choudhry 3,Sujya Chotu Ki Dhani, Rupvas,Tehsil Chaksu, Jaipur 1,98,000/- Total 9,78,500 The appellant in his submission produced ID proofs showing their names and address alongwith the proof of payment regarding brokerage vouchers and receipt that was paid in cash to them. On consideration of the documents filed, the appellant claimed that the agreement to sale of land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee. 4. The AO further disallowed the brokerage payment of Rs. 9,78,500/- paid in respect of above-mentioned sale of land. 5. Thereby the Ld. AO computed long term capital gain arising from sale of land of Rs. 6,85,42,430/- instead of Rs. 5,59,26,950/- as declared by the assessee. Hence the total additions and disallowances of Rs. 1,26,15,480/- have been made to returned income. 6. The appellant against the sale of land situated at Village-Chittora had paid brokerage of Rs. 9,78,500 to five persons. The details of brokerage paid to these persons are as under: S.No. Name Address Amount 1. Shri Sitaram Jat Jai Nagar, Todavata, Kakanriya ki Dhani, Phagi, Chittora Renwal, Jaipur. 1,95,000/- 2. Shri Prahlad Chittora, Renwal, Jaipur. 1,95,000/- 3. Shri Sukhdev 229, Kumharo ka Mohalla, Chittora, Phagi, Jaipur. 1,95,000/- 4. Shri Mohan Lal Gurjar 36, Gurjaro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such a scenario, generally a prudent person will make payment of Brokerage after receipt of complete sales consideration/ on or after the date of Registry. Hence this allegation of Ld. AO is also totally baseless, unjustified and deserves to be quashed. 14. It is also important here to mention that the Ld. AO in Assessment Order has made another allegation that the appellant himself was Director of the company to which the land was sold by the appellant, therefore, it cannot be accepted that there was any need of any broker to get the deal materialized. 15. In this regard it is humbly submitted that the appellant holds an ancestral property of 96 Bigha (approx.) at Village Chittora, Phagi, Dist. Jaipur. The purchaser Shri Ashu Mathur wanted to develop a Residential Scheme at Village Chittora Phagi Road, so he approached the appellant alongwith the above named Brokers (Sitaram Jat, Prahlad, Sukhdev, Mohan Lal Gurjar Mukesh Kumar Choudhary) for purchase of agricultural land of around 50 bighas during the year 2012. 16. As the purchaser Shri Ashu Mathur wanted to develop a residential scheme, various permissions were required from Jaipur Development Authority (JDA), theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar Choudhary 3, Sujya Chotu Ki dhnai, Rupvas, Tehsil Chaksu, Jaipur. 1,98,500/- Total 9,78,500/- From the record, it is noted that the assessee had submitted the copy of ID Proof i.e. Aadhar Card showing name and address of the above 05 persons which is available at PB No. 58-63. It is also noted that the assessee had submitted the payment voucher and signed receipt of brokerage payment amounting to Rs. 9,78,500/- as proof which is available at PB No. 64-65. It is also noted from the assessment order wherein the objection of the AO is that In this agreement there is no reference of any broker in the sale transaction. This document does not bear any signature of witness, it is only signed by the assessee and the director of the purchaser company. The Bench feels that there is no requirement of getting signature or putting the name of signature of the broker which is not part and parcel of the agreement and it is nowhere indicated in the registry about the name of the broker. We also find that the assessee had entered into agreement of land on 25-03-2023 but claimed payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
