TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sq. ft. Entire addition in the assessee's case has been made on the basis of mere statement of Shri Subhodh Runwal and there is absolutely no material involved which is not linked with the on money payment made by the assessee for purchase of shop - even in the same statement of Shri Subhodh Runwal, he had categorically stated that he even disagreed with the department that he had received cash from all sale of shops and flats made by M/s. Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd. With regard to the estimated addition on account of extrapolation of rate per square feet uniformly for all sale of flats/shops, we find that the same has been already deleted by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd., vide its order dated 20/12/2017 ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) was justified in confirming the addition made u/s. 69 of the Act as unexplained investment in the sum of ₹ 1,10,71,250/- in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is an individual and had filed her return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 on 28/08/2015 declaring total income of ₹ 26,56,810/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny. The ld. AO in the scrutiny proceedings observed that an information was received from DDIT(Investigation) Unit-IV (1) Mumbai regarding on-money paid by the assessee to the builder (Runwal group) for booking shop No. 35. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever made to said Runwal group and that the findings in the case of Runwal Group is at best be applicable to them and presumption cannot be applied in the case of the assessee. The assessee vide letter dated 26/12/2017 explained before the ld. AO that the shop No. G-35 was purchased vide agreement dated 24/04/2014 from Runwal Group for total consideration of ₹ 1,76,84,750/- and in addition to the above amount, the assessee paid stamp duty, registration charges, service tax, VAT etc., of ₹ 17,47,337/- from time to time and therefore aggregated cost was ₹ 1,94,32,087/-. The assessee has also furnished a copy of purchase agreement of shop G-35 entered with Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd. The assessee acknowledged the receipt of statem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urchase of shop in her statement recorded on oath u/s. 131 of the Act during the course of assessment proceedings. This rebuttal has been made in response to question no. 5 posed by the ld. AO at the time of recording statement, which is also reproduced in the assessment order itself. We also find that in para 4.3 of the assessment order, the ld. AO had reproduced the statement taken u/s. 132(4) of the Act from Shri Subhodh Runwal on 21/11/2014. In the said statement, in question No. 15 thereon, the ld. AO had tabulated the various flats/shops wherein the details of on-money payments received by Shri Subhodh Runwal for various flats and shops had been recorded. The said statement u/s. 132(4) of the Act of Shri Subhodh Runwal in question no. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not received on money from all the unit buyers and it was only in some cases he had accepted the cash. The list of unit holders from whom the cash was accepted has been reproduced in the assessment order as well as in the Tribunal order of M/s. Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No. 5621/Mum/2017 for A.Y. 2015-16 dated 20/12/2017. We find that the ld. AO had arrived at the figure of ₹ 1,10,71,250/- on the basis of estimating the on-money payment at ₹ 26,000 for sq. Ft per shop as was done in some cases as tabulated in the statement of Shri Subhodh Runwal. In other words, Shri Subhodh Runwal had agreed to the fact that for some cases, he had received on-money payments while selling its shop and flats. The ld. AO in the case of M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made for purchase of shop. In any case, it is for the Revenue to bring on record evidences that assessee had indeed made on-money payments over and above the agreement value. Reliance in this regard is placed on the celebrated decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs ITO reported in 131 ITR 597. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to supra and the Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd., referred to supra, we have no hesitation in directing the ld. AO to delete the addition made in the sum of ₹ 1,10,71,250/- u/s. 69 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
