9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advance. Thus, Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed. Addition for supported sales - crux of the submissions are that the actual transactions of sale of immovable property is at a lower amount because the sale transactions/agreement to sale has actually taken place in the preceding years but the sale deeds have been registered during the financial year 2013-14 - HELD THAT:- Similar is the situation for all the remaining eight transaction and the assessee with complete evidence of the bank transactions, registered conveyance deeds and ledger accounts exhibiting that in the actual sale transactions with all these parties have either been offered as sales in the preceding year for the year under consideration and even in some cases, the balance amount has been received in the subsequent financial years and have been offered to tax accordingly. Since the genuineness of all the transactions have been proved beyond doubt and complete details of transactions with each of the parties has been examined by us, we notice that addition made by the AO taking the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority cannot be held to be justified as the AO had not made the relevant enquiries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which exceeds the actual consideration paid has been brought into the statute in Section 56(2)(x)(b) by the Finance Act No. 2017, effective from 01/04/2017. Since the instant appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2014-15, there was no mechanism under the Act to make the addition for the excess of fair market value over the purchase consideration paid for purchase of immovable property. Thus, we are inclined to hold that since the assessee has duly disclosed the transactions as consideration has been paid through banking channel, no addition was called for on account of unexplained investment u/s 69. Thus, Ground No. 5 raised by the assessee stands allowed. - SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. MANISH BORAD, HON BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Assessee : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter the ld. CIT(A) ) dt. 03/03/2023, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Income of Rs. 1,09,65,940/- declared in the e-return filed for Assessment Year 2014-15 on 28/03/2016. The return was selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Various details were called for by the Assessing Officer and the same also contained details regarding advance received against booking of flats, examination of sales turnover as per the income tax returns vis -vis individual transaction statement available on income-tax portal. 3.1. The ld. Assessing Officer noticed that in the financial statement, sundry creditors as on 31/03/2014 included advance of Rs. 5,95,04,920/- received by S. Paik Co., which is a sole proprietorship concern of the assessee against the sale of flats. The ld. Assessing Officer picked up certain names from the details of parties from which advances were received and issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act but except one, the remaining three parties did not reply and in absence of satisfaction regarding the genuineness of the transactions, the advance of Rs. 48,00,000/- from three parties added to the income of the assessee. 3.2. Further the ld. Assessing Officer also observed that as per the indivi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. Reference also made to receipt summary and sale deed of various customers to whom assessee sold the immovable property in the past but the sale deed were registered during the year under consideration. Assessee also filed financial statements of the sole proprietorship concern and replies filed against various notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and same are available in the paper book filed on 10/08/2021. 6.1. The crux of the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the assessee are that firstly, with regard to the addition of Rs. 48,00,000/- for unexplained advance received from booking of flats, he submitted that though the parties, namely, Amalendu Barik, Debanjan Chakraborty and Indumati Panchali, did not reply to the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act but conveyance deed was executed with these parties which is duly registered with the Registering Authority alleged sum received in preceding final year(s) and the same is a genuine transactions for sale of flats and, therefore, no addition is was called for. Secondly, as regards mismatch in sales turnover as per return vis- -vis ITS details, he submitted that all the transaction amounts appearing in the ITS statement are the value adopted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er may be confirmed. 8. We have heard rival contentions, perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the judgments referred and relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in the written submission. We observe that the assessee is carrying out various types of business activities which includes property development, liquor shop, medicine shop, pathology lab, rental income etc. and assessee has made multiple sole proprietorship concern and prepares financial statements of each of the sole proprietorship concern. So far as the year under appeal is concerned, three additions are in challenge of which two relates to the business of property development and one relates to investment in immovable property. First we will take up the addition of Rs. 48,00,000/- made for unexplained advance received against booking of flats from following three parties:- Amalendu Barik - Rs. 19,00,000/- Debanjan Chakraborty - Rs. 4,00,000/- Indumati Panchali - Rs. 25,00,000/- 8.1. During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee brought to our attention that the alleged sum has not been received during the year under consideration. The alleged sum was received in preced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The above transaction relates to sale of flat at 2A, S.N. Roy Road, Kolkata-700034 to Smt. Babita Khanna as per agreement entered into in the year 1995 and the amount of Rs. 8,68,000/- has been included in sales turnover in the year 2005-06 though it was registered on 27/06/2013. The value of Rs. 57,59,250/- represents fair market value. The copy of the sale deed is enclosed. SI.No. 3- Transaction amount- Rs. 57,28,000/-. The above transaction relates to sale of flat at 71, Roy Bahadur Road, Kolkata-700053 to Mr. Manish Garg as per agreement dtd 20/ 12/2010 and the amount of Rs. 35,27,000/- has been included in sales turnover In the year 2012-13 Rs. 17,00,000/- and in the year 2013-14 Rs. 18,27,000/- though it was registered on 28/06/2013. The value of Rs. 57,28,000/represents fair market value. The copies of sale deed and agreement are enclosed. SI. No. 4- Transaction amount- Rs. 56,09,600/-. The above transaction relates to sale of flat at 71, Roy Bahadur Road, Kolkata-700053 to Mr. Bikahs Surana which is not related to Sri Anil Kr. Paik. This the sale of Land Lord's portion. The Joint venture agreement between land lord Mr. Balai Chand Pal and Mr. Anil Kr. Paik is enclosed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erial No. 2, wherein the transaction amount is Rs. 57,59,250/- as per the ITS and the date of transaction is 27/06/2013 i.e., the date of sale deed. Now from the details filed by the assessee, we observe that under the sole proprietorship concern, namely, S. Paik Co., Flat No. 2A, situated at S.N. Roy Road, Kolkata 700034 was sold to Smt. Babita Khanna during financial year 199697. Against the total sale consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/-, amount of Rs. 1,32,000/- was received in cash on various dates during the financial year 1995-96 and finally a cheque of Rs. 8,68,000/- was received on 05/04/1996. Since the consideration for the flat was received upto the financial year 1996-97 and the sales have been disclosed in the preceding financial years, it is only the sale deed which was registered during the year under consideration and the consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/- is stated in the sale deed itself at page 12 (paper book page 153). Reference has also been made for the agreement for sale executed in April, 1996. These facts, give a clear picture that the assessee had sold flats in the preceding year but they were registered in the name of the buyers through registered sale deeds du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been received through banking channel. In the instant case, we notice that the information about all the alleged transactions referred by the ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment order have been taken from ITS. The agreement to sale have been entered into between the assessee and the concern buyers in the preceding years and major part of the sale consideration has been received in the preceding years itself. The details filed by the assessee also indicates that part of the sale consideration has been received through banking channel in the preceding years itself. Therefore, since the sale transactions have mostly taken place in the past and consideration has been received as per the agreement to sale, no addition can be made for Assessment Year 2014-15 by invoking the provision of Section 43CA of the Act. 11.2. We, therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case are of the considered view that no addition is called for on account of alleged mismatch in the sales turnover as per the return of income vis- -vis ITS details because the actual sale transaction for transfer of immovable property has taken place prior to 31/03/2013 and the assessee has duly offered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
