Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 345 - AT - Income TaxUnaccounted sales of car parking area - addition on account of unaccounted sale of car parking area which was not included in the sale of agreements of the flats - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee on the basis of the finding given by his predecessor while completing the assessment for the AY 2012-13 by virtue of order dated 21/08/2017 in which 99% of the total estimated sale of parking area was added by the AO and only 1% added in the AY 2013-14 i.e in the present Assessment year. CIT(A) has reproduced the finding for the AY 2012-13 in his order in question which need not to be repeated again. Nothing came into the notice that there is any change or variation in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for the AY 2012-13. in which the claim of the assessee regarding sale of parking was allowed to the extent of 99%. Needless to say that in the present assessment year, the claim of 1% is only in question. The facts are not distinguishable at this stage. Moreover, the claim of the assessee has been confirmed by the Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai [2019 (2) TMI 1411 - ITAT MUMBAI] for the AY 2012-13 vide order dated 19/12/2018. Taking into account all these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the Ld.CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy, judiciously and correctly, which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Unaccounted income on FSI sale - CIT-A deleted the addition - Addition was raised on account of unsigned agreement - HELD THAT:- The claim of the assessee was for the sale consideration of ₹ 14 crores only. Seized material nowhere speaks that the cash transaction was of ₹ 7.5 crores. Comparison of documents nowhere speaks about the difference of ₹ 7.5 crores alleged to be paid in cash. The Appellant prepared the draft agreement with Jainam Developers to initiate the business deal which was not signed by the assessee as well as Jainam Developers. The sale amount was shown to the tune of ₹ 21.50 crores and the deal nowhere seems finalized being not corroborated by any other document on record. After a long time, the deal was finalized to the extent of ₹ 40 crores which was offered to tax. At this time authority determined the market value of the property to the tune of ₹ 13,08,92,000/-. The payment of ₹ 14 crores mentioned at page 150 -153 of the paper book. The Ld. AO issued notice to the Jainam Developers who confirmed the deal to the tune of ₹ 14 crores. The Ld. AO raised the addition of ₹ 7.5 crores on the basis of assumption as well as difference between signed and unsigned documents. Addition cannot be raised on the basis of unsigned agreement specifically when the transaction is not corroborated by any other evidence on record. Loose papers are also not liable to be taken into consideration to raise the addition except corroborated by any other piece of evidence on record and in this regard, we also find the support of decision of CIT vs Dharmdev Finance Pvt. Ltd [2014 (4) TMI 1005 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and Pradeep Amrutlal Runwal [2015 (12) TMI 958 - ITAT PUNE] - we are of the view that the Ld.CIT(A) ) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, we affirm the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
|