9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be sustained without bringing on record evidences suggesting actual receipt of consideration over and above face value of shares. Considering the detailed discussion made by the CIT[A] held that entire addition made by the AO cannot be sustained. Thus the Ground no.2 raised by Revenue is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. - Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member For the Revenue : Shri Durga Dutt, CI T-DR For the Assessee : Ms. Amrin Pathan, A.R. ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: - This appeal is filed by the Revenue as against the appellate order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) relating to the Assessment Year 2007-08. Cross Objection is filed by the assessee as against the above Revenue appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case is that assessee engaged in the business of development of various projects from which it earned development fees. The assessee claimed that it is an Advisor and Technical Consultant for the developmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,54,50,250/- which were filed during assessment proceedings also. It is observed that the major liabilities inter alia are consisting of Kalhar Bunglow booking amount The other credit balances are in respect of creditors for expenses, creditors for goods and creditors for labour as on 31st March, 2008. The appellant has provided the statements giving names and complete details of booking amounts. names and complete details of creditors for expenses, names and complete details of creditors for goods, names and complete details for creditors for labour which were also placed on the records of the assessing officer. It is contended that each and every individual credit entry has been accepted by the assessing officer as genuine and duly supported by documentary evidences acceptable in the eyes, of law. It is therefore asserted that since each and every individual entry has been accepted as a genuine liability the balance of Rs. 10,54,50,250/-is also a genuine liability on the part of the appellant company. 4.7 It is submitted by the appellant company that on completion of the construction and on allotment of bunglows, the booking amount and the cost of the construction are being trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken from the members are being shown as liability in the balance sheet. Thus, stand of the assessee before the AO was that being a developer, its rights were limited to receive development fees on completion of project. The society is owner and has right, title and interest on work-in-progress. This stand of the assessee has been accepted by the ld.CIT(A) in both the assessment years. Contrary to this stand, nothing has been brought to our notice. The assessee has demonstrated that it was working only as a developer and alleged collection over expenditure cannot be treated as its business income, rather, it was a liability in the balance sheet. Therefore, we are of the view that the ld CIT(A) has rightly deleted this addition and, no interference is called for. Similarly, in A.Y 2009-10 and addition of Rs. 4,84,35,702/- was made on account of excess of collection over expenses. It was deleted by CIT(A). We do not find any error in the order of (he Id. CIT(A) Thus, this ground is rejected in both years. 10. As far estimation of profit at 8% of the WIP in both these years is concerned, we have gone through the record with the assistance of the ld. representatives. In the Asstt. Year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Yrs. 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2012-13 in ITA No.2634/Ahd/2011 others wherein on similar facts additions made by the AO were deleted. 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record and case laws cited before us. The entire facts of assessee's case under consideration are identical with facts of the other assessment years and there is no change in the modus operation of the business of the assessee. Therefore, respectfully following Co-ordinate Bench decisions in subsequent Assessment Year referred supra, entire addition made by the AO on account of business income of Rs. 9,42,29,188/- is deleted. Thus the Ground no.1 raised by Revenue is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 7. Regarding Ground No.2 deletion of addition of Short Term Capital Gain on account of transfer of shares of Rs. 6,99,65,000/-. Brief facts is the assessee had developed the project named Kings Square of Sujan Infrastructure Pvt. Limited (SIPL). The assessee acquired 14,000 equity shares of SIPL which were transferred to Dubey Group at face value of Rs. 10/- each. The assessee has shown NIL capital gain in its Return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition made by the AO for Rs 6,99,65,000/- cannot be sustained. 8. Ld CIT DR appearing for the Revenue could not place on record any contra decisions in favour of the Revenue by any higher appellate authorities. 9. Per contra Ld Counsel appearing for the assessee has relied on the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of SIPL for the A.Yrs. 2004-05 to 2007-08 in IT[ss]A Nos. 585/ Ahd/2011 others wherein on similar facts additions made by the AO were deleted. 10. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record and case laws cited before us. The entire addition made by the AO was only on presumption which is not sustainable in law and cannot be sustained without bringing on record evidences suggesting actual receipt of consideration over and above face value of shares. Considering the detailed discussion made by the Ld CIT[A] and relying upon the Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of SIPL cited supra, it is held that entire addition made by the AO for Rs 6,99,65,000/- cannot be sustained. Thus the Ground no.2 raised by Revenue is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result the appeal filed by the Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
