9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rification on the issue. Apart from raising some counter question upon the AO, the assessee has not offered any worthwhile explanation. CIT(A) in first appeal however referred to pleading of behalf of the assessee and relied upon the contents of loose paper no.54 showing sale consideration as per registered deed and accepted the version of the assessee towards sale consideration of Rs. 36,00,76,400/- declared by the assessee. We observe that while holding in favour of the assessee, the CIT(A) has not discussed as to how a tangible document/ loose paper no.15 found from the possession of the purchaser in course of drastic action of search is unworthy of any reliance. The overwhelming characteristic of contents of such notings/loose paper showing part payments against the agreed sale consideration and resultant outstanding was totally ignored. CIT(A) has also not made any discussion on non-compliance of summons issued to the purchaser u/s 131 of the Act. A hand written document found from the premises of purchaser, without being disowned, called for due weight. CIT(A), to our mind, merrily accepted mundane and stereotyped defenses raised on behalf of the assessee in a per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised by the revenue read as under: The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the disallowance made by the AO amounting to Rs. 3,99,23,600/- under the Capital Gain . 3. Briefly stated, the assessee company is engaged in the business of purchase, development and sale of properties and also derives income from interest and capital gains. For the A.Y. 2014-15 in question, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income at Rs. 32,81,01,050/-. The return filed by the assessee was subjected to scrutiny assessment. In course of the scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee company has inter alia earned Long Term Capital Gains on sale of property situated at B-35, Sector-132, Greater Noida. The property was sold to M/s. UTC Softech Pvt. Ltd. (UTC) for a stated consideration of Rs. 36,00,76,400/-. A search and seizure under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 10.10.2013 on Urbtech Group including the purchaser of the property M/s. UTC Softech Pvt. Ltd. (earlier known as Suntar Properties (P.) Ltd.). Certain loose papers, diary, documents were inter alia seized in the search. The AO of the purchaser vide h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gone through the submissions of the appellant, the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer and the material facts placed on the record, it emerges from the facts that the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 3.99 crore on the basis of the document scanned and copied on the page number 3 of the order of assessment for the assessment year 2014-2015. The counsel of the appellant filed the detailed submissions and other documentary evidences to rebut the observations of the Assessing officer as noted in the order of assessment. It is stated that the Assessing Officer provided the assessee two copies of the documents seized during the search. It is explained that on the 36 perusal of the document No.54 seized by Party A-6, it is amply clear that the deal in question was for Rs. 36,00,76,400/-, which is same as per Registered Sale Deed and also on the basis of which capital gain in question was worked out. The said seized document was precise containing the working on the basis of which land under sale measuring 20116 sq. mtrs. @ Rs. 17,900/- per sq. metre tallies with the actual sale consideration of Rs. 36,00,76,400/-, which is shown in the Registered Sale Deed. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 5. The Revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) granting relief to the assessee before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. DR for the Revenue strongly assailed the action of the CIT(A) and defended the order of the AO. 6.1 The Learned DR pointed out that; (a) the CIT(A) has clearly proceeded on misconception of facts and law while determining the issue in favour of the assessee (b) the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Assessing Officer has put all efforts to justify his action; the copy of loose papers/dairy/document found at the premises of the purchaser showing the same property (B-35, Sector-132, Greater Noida) received from the AO of the purchaser was duly confronted to the assessee; a summon was also issued to the purchaser of the property; the assessee failed to file any defense but raised counter enquiry like copy of panchnama and copy of statement of Director of searched person; the summon under section 131 issued upon the purchaser was also not complied with (c) the CIT(A) overlooked the categorical loose paper no. 15 to Annexure-A62 seized from the premises of Urbtech Group; the loose paper clearly reflects the calculation and working including sale consideratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly and rightly relied upon the consideration declared in sync with registered sale agreement and the consideration referred in document no.54 to affirms the declared sale consideration. The Learned Counsel referred to judgment rendered by Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36(Delhi) to contend that assessment cannot be made on the basis of imagination and guesswork, which has been done by the AO in the instant case. The Learned Counsel thus submitted that the action of the CIT(A) cannot be faulted and no interference therewith is called for. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the assessment order and the First Appellate order. The material referred to and relied upon in course of hearing has been carefully perused in terms of Rule 18(6) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. The controversy in the present case relates to additions on account of understated sale consideration on sale of property by the assessee in the factual matrix. The issue is essentially factual in nature and is thus wholly dependent upon the examination of facts threadbare. 8.1 The Assessing Officer in the course of assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. It is surprising that a noting/ document reflecting not only sale consideration but also showing part payments and outstanding amounts has been found to be unworthy of any reliance. 11. It is trite that the scope of powers vested to the CIT(A) under section 251 are co- terminus and co-extensive with that of AO exercising quasi judicial functions. The CIT(A) is not only an appellate authority but also possess the powers of an adjudicating authority similar to that of an AO. The powers of enquiry thus in a sense, runs concurrently. Proper appreciation of all material placed before him was incumbent in law. The CIT(A) ought to have made suitable enquiries on the proprietary of sale consideration declared in the light of document seized instead of brushing aside the action of the AO in a lopsided manner. 12. In our considered view, the order of CIT(A) lacks comprehension. The CIT(A) has omitted to expound the facts in perspective while displacing the order of AO. The fallacy in action of the CIT(A) is quite visible and hence the impugned first appellate order cannot be countenanced in law. 13. The appellate order of the CIT(A) is thus set aside and matter is restored b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
