TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s per clause 6, all expenditures with regard to execution and registration had to be borne by the Vendee. The contention of the appellant that the sale price is inclusive of registration expenditure and surcharge on stamp duty is totally incorrect. No document has been produced before the Assessing Authority to show that the Stamp Duty and Corporation Tax are inclusive of the sale price as contended by the appellant. All the three authorities concurrently held that the appellant has failed to disclose the expenditure incurred with regard to the Stamp Duty as well as Corporation Tax. Accordingly, income was assessed - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.288/2012 - - - Dated:- 4-9-2013 - Dilip B Bhosale And B Manohar, JJ. For the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own in the books of accounts. The authorized representative of the assessee has replied that the total price paid for the properties includes registration costs and the Vendor defrayed the cost of the registration and the assessee has not incurred any such expenditure. However, the authorized representative of the assessee has not produced any document in this regard. On verification of those three sale deeds, it is seen that at clause Nos.5 and 6 it is clearly mentioned that the Vendor shall clear and pay all the dues and Cess including the property tax upto the date of handing over the possession of the property. Further all the expenses relating to stamp duty for registration of sale deeds and other incidental charges for transfer of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant has preferred this appeal, with following substantial question of law: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the addition of Rs.28.24 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer.? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal committed an error and recorded perverse finding contrary to the evidence on record in holding that the expenditure incurred on account Stamp Duty and Corporation Tax was borne by the appellant.? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs.28.24 lakhs as unexplained expenditure by invoking Section 69-C is in accordance with law.? 5. Sri.Gane ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he stamp duty and it is not the Corporation Tax. He also made available the order dated 25-09-2001 issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Delhi. Further, no document has been produced before the Assessing Authority or the First Appellate Authority to prove their case. All the three authorities concurrently held that the appellant has paid the stamp duty and surcharge on stamp duty and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 7. We have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, First Appellate Authority as well as the Assessing Authority. 8. The sale deed dated 03-03-2006 executed by Mrs.Sheela Gehlot in favour of the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
