9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals)-1, Chennai, dated 27.01.2016 in ITA No.369/13-14/A-1 (New No.ITA 217/CIT(A)-1/A-1), to the extent that the Appellate Commissioner had partly allowed the appeal of the respondent assessee, and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 2,03,27,768/- in the Assessment year 2010-11 towards alleged sales suppression. 2. The respondent/assessee, hereinafter referred to as the assessee , is a company engaged in property development. The assessee had undertaken the commissioning of project 'Auro One' consisting of 19 units. The assessee sold two flats being G3 and F4 at Rs. 4,129/- and Rs. 4,000/- per sq.ft. respectively to its sister concern, whereas other flats had been booked at Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 9,000/- per sq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer had added Rs. 2,03,27,768/- towards alleged suppression of sales. 6. It appears that the Assessing Officer had added the difference of the price at which the two flats has been sold to sister concerns and the price offered to the assessee by third parties amounting to Rs. 2,03,27,768/-. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee company had, in order to reduce its taxable income, entered into an agreement with it's sister concern and received Rs. 1.60 crores at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 4,129/- per sq.ft. in respect of Flat Nos.G3 and F4 respectively, whereas other flats were booked at Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 9,000/- per sq.ft. 7. The issue before the Appellate Commissioner was, whether the differential price be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retained two flats from the project. Moreover, the reason for reduction of sale consideration is also genuine because if the assessee had not received such advance from the buyer it would not have been possible to execute the project. Considering these facts, we are of the considered view that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has rightly decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Therefore, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Hence we hereby confirm the same." 10. The Appellate Commissioner as also the learned Tribunal concurred in their factual finding that there had been no suppression of sales. The two flats were sold at a discount price, for business exigencies and in particular, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
