TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arty recorded on 17.07.2009 during the search in the case of Royal group and on the basis of unaudited statements found with the third party. He has not challenged the audited accounts filed by the assessee along with the Return of Income. He has also not excluded the same sales proceeds in AY 2009-10, which amounts to double taxation of the same amount of income relatable to same sales proceeds. In view of above, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition of to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration on account of difference in sales turnover in unaudited accounts and audited accounts, particularly when the assessee had already offered corresponding income in AY 2009-10 and assessed u/s 143(3) r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent. 2. The assessee is a partnership firm, engaged in the business as builder and developer. During the year under consideration, the assessee was engaged in the business of redevelopment of slum under the Special Act of the Govt. of Maharashtra. The scheme was administered through the Slum Development Authority, under which the dwellers were provided houses free of cost by the developer and the assessee was entitled to specified FSI, which could be utilized for the construction of residential /commercial building for sale in open market. The assessee constructed a commercial building for sale in Gundavali Taluka, Andheri. The commercial building constructed by the assessee consists of grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee has produced books of account for FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09 for verification which are placed on record. However the contention of the assessee is not acceptable for the reasons that: 1) ASSESSEE has confirmed the disclosure of ₹ 11,20,22,235/- in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) at the time of SEARCH. 2) The Assessee itself has filed Return of Income u/s 139(1) in respect to AY 2008-09 disclosing the said Income which was disclosed during the search thereby confirming the disclosure. The books of accounts for AY 2008-09 have already been audited by 31/10/2008 much before the date of search and have been filed along the Return of Income u/s 139(1). 3) The basis on which the Revised Return is filed by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lt in the books of accounts and the audited statements of the assessee. He has simply relied on the statement recorded u/s 132(4) during the search and the first return of income filed by the assessee declaring the total income of ₹ 11,20,22,235/-. After considering and verifying the total constructed area of all eleven floors, constructed area sold in FY 2007-08, closing stock as on 31.03.2008, sales during FY 2008-09 and closing stock as on 31.03.2009, it was established that the sales of 9th and 11th floor office building was accounted for in FY2007-08 in the unaudited statement found during the search and at the same time cost of construction of 9th and 11th floor was also included in the closing stock of 31.03.2008; so, on the cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee and from that statement, it was found that the statement recorded on 17.07.2009 during the search of one Shri Ujwal Kankaria, who is neither a partner of the firm nor any relative of the partners of the firm. The assessee has submitted that none of the partners had made any statement u/s 132(4). Further the said Shri Ujwal Kankaria has only stated as under in reply to Q. No. 15:- Q. No 15: Please see page no 304 of file annexure BS-8, wherein you have worked out the income at ₹ 11,20,22,240/- for Divine Developers. Similarly for Dev Developers at page no 180 of File Annexure BS-9, total income is worked out at ₹ 1,83,34,410/-. Please state why the amount of ₹ 13,03,56,650/- should not be treated as undisclo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les proceeds and the corresponding income of 9th and 11th floor in the assessment order for the AY 2009-10 passed by him on 30.12.2011, i.e., the same day when he passed the order for AY 2008-09. Thus, it was evident from the record that the Assessing Officer himself has assessed the income relevant to 9th and 11 floor in both the Assessment Years, i.e. AY 2008-09 and 2009- 10 and the same was not found justified. The closing stock of FY 2007-08 was sold during FY 2008-09 and was rightly reflected in the audited accounts of that year. It is matter of record. 3.4 From the above, it is clear that there was a bonafide mistake committed by the assessee in filing the original return of income of AY 2008-09 filed on 27.07.2009 which was rectif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
