Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 119 - AT - Income TaxUndisclosed sales - gap between the stamp value and the actual sales consideration - buyer of the property categorically denied having paid any such amount to the appellant - addition on bases of loose papers - Held that:- It is difficult to accept the case of the AO that for a property whose sale deed has already been duly registered with the concerned authorities on 23.9.2005, the cash component, if involved any, would be paid as late as on 15.5.2006. It is further noted by us that the stamp value assessed by the stamp valuation authority for the adjoining flats has been varying between ₹ 38.5 lakhs to ₹ 42.20 lakhs during the period when the impugned sale deed was registered, whereas these properties were sold between ₹ 15 lakhs to ₹ 19 lakhs. Thus, there was clearly a gap between the stamp value and the actual sales consideration. Thus, no conclusive inference could be drawn that merely because the stamp value was more, there was exchange of cash between the parties, unless some more cogent contrary material is brought on record. Lastly, we find force in another argument of the ld. Counsel that even if, although denied by the assessee, it is assumed that cash was received by the assessee, the same could not have been brought to tax in the year under consideration since the entire sales consideration of impugned property sold by the assessee has been received and booked by the assessee in its books of accounts in F.Y 2005-06. On the basis of perusal of the profit and loss account it is noted that the sale value of the entire project has been booked in F.Y 2005-06. It is also an admitted case that the assessee is following ‘project completion method’. Thus, if at all some addition is required to be made, that could have been made only during F.Y 2005-06, although we have already held on the basis of evidences brought before us that it could not be concluded that the assessee had received any cash amount. Thus we find that the addition made by the AO is not sustainable as per law and facts, and therefore, the same is directed to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee
|