Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2006 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (4) TMI 232 - AT - Income TaxAddition To Income - rejection of sale price of flats claimed to have been received by assessee (and as evidenced by the registered sale deeds) and substituting the same by an estimated sale price - HELD THAT:- The basic edifice of revenue's addition in this regard consist of letters of the assessee to prospective buyers and letter given by one of the customers to the bank. As regards the amount of Rs. 1,250 per sq. ft. mentioned in the letter, we find that the final agreement for sale was executed at a different amount duly signed by both the parties. The explanation for this is that these letters were prior to finalization and execution of written agreement and it is the finally executed sale deed which should prevail in this regard. As regards the letter and the agreement given by the customer to the bank, it is noted that the agreement attached with this letter is also not signed by the assessee. Though the letter given by the assessee to the bank dated 12-11-1998 does mention about the amount calculated at the rate of Rs. 1,250 per sq. ft., the final agreement of sale made between the assessee and the customer is not at this rate. In the presence of some conflict in this regard and in absence of any further supporting evidence, it should be the final written sale agreement executed by both the parties which should be taken into account - except making estimates on the basis of that letter, the revenue has not done anything cogent enough to buttress the claim that sale was actually made at Rs. 1,250 per sq. ft. The Assessing Officer has neither brought about the comparative figures in the locality nor had the matter been referred to the Valuation Cell to arrive at the value thereof. It is concluded that in this case the revenue has not cogently proved that estimated sale price is the actual sale consideration. Reliance has been placed by the lower authorities on letters which are contradicted by the actual sale deed executed. The books and records have not been rejected; rather for one project, the amount recorded in the books has been made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as the basis to delete the same estimated addition by the Assessing Officer. The revenue has neither taken assistance of its Valuation Cell nor brought about comparative figures. Thus, the revenue has failed in proving that the actual consideration is the one as estimated by the lower authorities. The remark by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the similar addition on site No. 171 would apply to this case also that the addition is unwarranted, unjustified and has been made without collecting the relevant material - the assessee's appeal is allowed.
|