TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... commanded higher price compared to other flats was that the said unit had locational advantage of entire floor suitable for a car show room compared to unit no. 302. In the light of the above facts, CIT(A) observed that there was no case made out by Assessing Officer that the sale price was below the price declared by the State Government of Maharashtra or below the market price. Assessing Officer had simply applied the differential in rates for booking of unit no. 101 and 302A for arriving at the actual booking rate for unit no.302. The addition made by Assessing Officer was therefore simply on the basis of difference in the rate in booking of unit no.101. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Mumbai ITAT in case of Nelkamal Realtors erec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 15.06.2011 in ITA No.55378/Mum/2009 in the case of ITO 19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Diamond Investment Properties (A.Y.2005-06) had upheld similar addition of suppressed sale consideration under similar facts and circumstances which was upheld by Hon ble Bombay High Court order dated 20.03.2014 in ITA No.14 of 2012. 2. The facts of the case are that addition of ₹ 4.16 crore was made to the income of assessee. Assessee firm is builder and developer and engaged in the activity of buildings and redevelopment of real estate projects. Assessee during the year has declared income from business and other sources. During assessment proceedings, assessee has shown income from sale of commercial units located in a commercial c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee has claimed that market value, as assessed by the stamp duty registering authority in the case of unit no. 302 was ₹ 1,44,58,500/-, as against agreement price of ₹ 1.51 crore, which is higher than the market value assessed by the stamp duty registering authority, whereas, Assessing Officer observed that the issue at hand was that the sale price of unit no.302 was much less than the price at which similar commercial units had been sold to other buyers in the same building during the similar time period, therefore, the claim of assessee that sale price of unit 302 was higher than the stamp duty is not relevant. Assessing Officer also rejected the submission of assessee that unit no. 302 suffers from design disadvantages and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.2009 and the entire payment was made on 04.11.2009. He, therefore, held that two transactions are comparable, in view case of almost identical timing and since assessee could not provide plausible reason for such vide variation in rates, he applied the rate at which first floor (premises no. 101), has been sold, for the purpose of determining the actual sale rate for unit no. 302. Accordingly, rate of 2,94,485.29/- per sq. mtr., was adopted by him for computing the sale price of unit no. 302 (192.78 sq. mtr.) and difference of ₹ 4,16,70,874/- was treated by him as unaccounted income of assessee from sale of unit no. 302, and added same to the income of assessee. 2.1 Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, underhand transactions of on money in this case cannot be denied, especially when the prevalent market rates in the same building were more than three times higher than the rate at which premises no. 302 was shown to be sold by assessee. However, Assessing Officer has not brought any evidence on record to show as to how the explanation of assessee that there is locational disadvantages in the case of unit no.302, which has been duly recorded by him, was not correct. Assessing Officer has not brought any evidence to establish that there has been on money transaction for sale of said unit no. 302. It is not a case of transaction between related parties. Assessee also informed the Assessing Officer that unit no. 302 sold at a value which wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
