TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny corroborative material. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to intervene or deviate from the findings so recorded by the ld. CIT(A) qua this issue and thus we uphold the same and consequently, this ground raised by the Revenue stands dismissed. Expenditure incurred on account of registration - HELD THAT:- We are in agreement with the submission of the ld. A/R that when there was no purchase of land in the year under appeal, then no registration expenses etc. are received to be incurred on account of registration etc by the assessee in the year under appeal. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the addition sustained by the ld. CIT (A) is unwarranted and the same is directed to the deleted. Addition made on the basis of impounded page no. 45 undated - HELD THAT:- The paper neither bears the name of the company nor in the handwriting of any of the Directors/employees. When the sale proceeds have been recorded and accounted for in the books of account then no separate addition on this account can legally be made. It is evident and apparent from the assessment order as well as ld. CIT (A) s order that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er is undated and having only rough notings, therefore, we are of the considered view that as per law, no addition can be made on suspicion and without any legal supporting evidences and accordingly the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) is deleted. Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) for alleged non-deduction of TDS from payments made to contractors for land development - HELD THAT:- We observed from perusal of the record that the assessee company in case of land development expenses due TDS was deducted at the time of credit / payments made. The proof of payment of TDS is submitted. A.O. made the addition without proper verification from books of accounts of assessee company. It is an important fact that M/s Devi Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. to whom development expenses paid has filed its return of income including the above said development charges paid by the assessee as its income. A copy of return of income of said company is already attached. Thus even in absence of submitting the declaration on prescribed Form u/s 201(1) of the Act no disallowance of the development charges paid to the said company deserves to be made. See GIRDHARI LAL BARGOTI, [ 2015 (11) TMI 746 - ITAT JAIPUR] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds of appeal connected to the issue that no corroborative documentary evidence is brought on record by the revenue/ld. CIT (A) and accordingly without supporting evidence the enhancement made by the ld. CIT (A) cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we direct to delete the same. - ITA No. 468/JP/2017 And ITA No. 469/JP/2017 And ITA No. 474/JP/2017 - - - Dated:- 25-11-2021 - Shri Sandeep Gosain, JM And Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, AM For the Revenue : Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) For the Assessee : Shri S.R. Sharma, CA And Shri Rajnikant Bhatra, CA ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. These are the appeals and cross appeal filed by the Revenue and the assessee arise against the combined order of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Jaipur dated 31/03/2017 for the A.Y. 2008-09 and 2010-11 respectively. 2. The hearing of the appeals was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic. 3. Since, common issues have been involved in these appeals, therefore, these appeals were clubbed and heard together and for the sake of convenience, a common order is being passed. 4. Firstly, we take Revenue s appeal being ITA No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings. Accordingly the AO worked out the net profit at ₹ 3,62,32,413/- on the sale of plot of ₹ 14,49,29,653/- and finally assessment u/s 147/143(3) was completed on 04-03-2016 by the A.O. by making an addition of ₹ 3,62,32,413/-. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of both the parties and material placed on record, allowed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue preferred appeal before the ITAT on the ground mentioned above: 8. The solitary ground raised by the revenue in this appeal relates to challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 3,62,32,413/- made by the AO on the basis of loose paper, impounded during survey u/s 133A of the Act. In this regard, the ld. CIT-DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue has vehemently supported the order of the AO and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the additions made by the AO on the account of loose paper impounded during survey u/s 133A of the Act. It was also submitted that the assessee has not declared sale of pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed paper wherein the assessee company is a party either as a buyer or as a seller. In the absence of these evidences, any transaction recorded in whatsoever manner on an abandoned piece of paper cannot lead to an assumption that any transaction in land could have taken place. Moreover, merely on the basis of presumption, no adverse action can be taken against the assessee. In such a set of circumstances, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to bring on record evidences which substantiate the contents of the seized paper. In the absence of such corroborative evidences, the seized paper is nothing but a very feeble and weak piece of evidence or it can be said that it is equivalent to no evidence. It is well settled proposition and in fact, the basic principle of Income-Tax law that it only the income of a person that can be taxed and that income has to be real not presumptive. b) The assessee company demonstrated with the help of supporting/corroborative evidences that out of the amount ₹ 14,49,29,653/- a sum of ₹ 11,81,44,975/- (₹ 7,68,09,975 plus ₹ 4,13,35,000) relates to estimated sales amount of booking already considered and included in e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is a settled position of law that section 133A does not empower any A.O. to examine any person on Oath, so statement recorded under section 133A has no evidentiary value and not a conclusive piece of evidence. Thus on the basis of admission made and or such statement cannot be a basis of addition in view of the scope and ambit of the materials collected during the course of survey action under section 133A, being not having any evidentiary value in the eyes of law. It is further held by hon ble Courts that on the basis of the statement given by one of the partners of the assessee-firm that the disclosed income was assessable as lawful income of the assessee CIT Vs. Khadar Khan Sen (2012) 210 Taxman 248 (SC). In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case the addition made on account of alleged profit @ 25% on the alleged sales is wrong and without any effort to verify/support the alleged sale transactions with the supporting co-gent-martial documentary evidence tenable in the eyes of law. Thus impugned addition on this account is made by the Ld. A.O. is arbitrary based on surmises and conjunctures deserves to be deleted. Further it is submitted when these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by the revenue authorities. Before we proceed further, it is necessary to evaluate the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) which is under challenge before us. The ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue at page No. 104 to 106 of his impugned order at para (v) to (vii) and the same reproduced herenbelow:- (v) I have duly considered the submissions of the appellant, assessment order and the material placed on record. It has already been stated earlier in this order that statement recorded u/s 133A of the Act without any corroborating evidence has no evidentiary value. It is noted from the impounded pg No.16 that Shri Girraj Agarwal booked land and has received payment of ₹ 2,58,09,703/- till 12-07-2007. Further, as pper page No.21, Shri Girraj Agarwal and Shri Ramesh Dangayach have booked 377200 and 69287 square yards of land for a total consideration of ₹ 4,23,10,000/- and ₹ 7,68,09,975/- respectively meaning thereby that 107007 square yards of land was booked by both of them for a total consideration of ₹ 11,91,19,975/. (vi) It is noted that as per page No.10 of the impounded documents till 21-11-2006, Shri Girraj Agarwal has booked 37000 square yar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellant has suppressed its sale over the number of years and the AO has already been directed to initiate proceedings u/s 147 of the Act for making appropriate additions in a number of years. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it is held that the addition of ₹ 3,62,32,413/- made by the AO is without any justification and thus cannot be sustained, hence, hereby deleted. 11. We observed that it is settled proposition of law that the statement u/s 133A of the Act is not a statement on oath and cannot be used as evidence without any corroborative material on record to justify the statement made more so when the same was obtained under duress and threat. Statement recorded u/s 133A of the Act without any corroborating evidence has no evidentiary value. In this regard, we draw strength from the decision in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.) confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Khader Khan Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480 wherein it was held that Section 133A does not empower any ITO to examine any person on oath. In contradistinction to the power under section 133A, section 132 (4) enables the autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 975000 (42310000 41335000) can be considered for the year under consideration. Further, page No. 16 of the impounded documents pertained to payments amounting to ₹ 2,58,09,703/- received from the customers through Shri Girraj Agarwal as on 12-07-2007 which is nothing but out of the plots booked by Shri Girraj Agarwal for ₹ 4,23,10,000/- as mentioned on page No. 21 of the impounded documents. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, at the most, only a sum of ₹ 7,68,09,975/- (page No.21) on account of booking made by Shri Ramesh Dangayach and ₹ 975000/- can be considered as the sale of plots by the assessee company and not ₹ 14,49,29,653/- as taken by the AO. 13. Further, in the facts of the present case, there cannot be any justification for applying net profit rate of 25% on the total booking amount solely and merely on the basis of statement of Shri Ramesh Dangayach as the AO has not brought on record any corroborative evidence or material to indicate that sale of 107007 square yards of land has taken place during the year under consideration. Thus, the addition made by the AO cannot be sustained in view of the decision of Hon ble Apex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,16,45,000/- made by the AO on the basis of loose paper no. 36 without appreciating facts and circumstances of the case? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 6,38,183/- made by the AO on the basis of loose paper no. 46 without appreciating facts and circumstances of the case? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 6,50,000/- made by the AO on the basis of loose paper no. 47 without appreciating facts and circumstances of the case? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 24,50,000/- made by the AO on the basis of loose papers no. 48 to 49 without appreciating facts and circumstances of the case? 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,94,733/- made by the AO on the basis of loose paper no. 54 without appreciating facts and circumstances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and has erred in law in confirming various arbitrary and illegal additions made by A.O. in the income of appellant company without any cogent material or evidence simply on the basis of some undated rough, deaf and dumb papers or projections found in course of survey u/s 133A in case of appellant company allegedly on account of (i) various expenses incurred for stamps, advertisement, leveling of land etc amounting to ₹ 2,08,002/- on the basis of impounded page No. 25 28. (ii) Profit on sales collection amounting to ₹ 6,57,000/- on the basis of impounded page No. 45. (iii) Pertaining to sales of ₹ 82,10,000/- on the basis of impounded Page No. 50 by holding that the same are not recorded in books of accounts of appellant as against addition of ₹ 20,52,500/- made by A.O. (iv) Various expenses incurred and on account of estimated profits on land transactions at Green city of ₹ 9,40,000/- ₹ 2,30,000/- on the basis of impounded page 60 61.] (v) Earning of profit of ₹ 1,60,000/- in some land transactions on the basis of impounded Page No. 62. (vi) Holding on the basis that notings on impounded Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd. The Ld. A.O. alleged that total collection from sale of land appears on papers at ₹ 5,94,09,987/- on which profits is taken at ₹ 1,48,52,496/- being 25% of sale of land and so made addition of ₹ 1,48,52,496/- as income of assessee company. In this connection it is submitted that the transactions are recorded in books of accounts of company in F.Y. 2009-10. The assessee in the books of accounts declared sales of ₹ 2,31,57,185/- and received advance from customers amounting to ₹ 2,78,85,753/- i.e. total ₹ 5,10,42,398/- against sale of land. Some of the transactions noted in papers did not materialize or finalized in subsequent year. Thus transactions of purchase of land and sales of plots are recorded in books of accounts and these papers are rough papers containing notings projections and estimates. The profit @ 25% shown in paper is also estimated working and actual profit earned on actual purchase/sale is worked out as per books of accounts. The addition of alleged profit is thus wrong and without any effort to verify the transactions from books of accounts and is not supported with cogent material and evidence which deserves to be de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 5,10,42,398/- against sale of land. Some of the transactions noted in papers did not materialize and thus finalize in subsequent year. Thus, transactions of purchase of land and sales of plots were recorded in books of accounts and these papers are rough papers containing notings, projections and estimates. These calculations are relating to 25% share in sale proceeds, cost of acquisition and other expenses and there was final liability of ₹ 7,48,200/-. We fail to understand that how working of 25% share could be treated as 25% profit. It is noticed that the AO has relied heavily upon the statement of Shri Ramesh Dangayach, Director of the assessee company without bringing on record any corroborative material. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to intervene or deviate from the findings so recorded by the ld. CIT(A) qua this issue and thus we uphold the same and consequently, this ground raised by the Revenue stands dismissed. 20. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue s appeal relates to challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,16,45,000/- made by the A.O. on the basis of loose paper no. 36. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any corroborating material. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to intervene or deviate from the findings so recorded by the ld. CIT(A) qua this issue and we uphold the same and consequently, this ground raised by the Revenue stands dismissed. 25. Grounds No. 3 and 4 of the Revenue s appeals relate to challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 6,38,183/- and 6,50,000/- made by the A.O. on the basis of loose papers No. 46 and 47. 26. At the outset, the ld. CIT-DR has vehemently supported the order of the A.O. 27. On the contrary, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that this paper contains some figures written thereon. The Ld. A.O. wrongly assumed it to pertain to sales and made addition of profit @ 25% thereon. The presumption is only a guess work, surmises and conjectures which is baseless and unsubstantiated. The additions are wrong and deserve to be deleted. 28. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the material placed on record, from perusal of record, we obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deviate from the findings so recorded by the ld. CIT(A) qua this issue and we uphold the same and consequently, these grounds raised by the Revenue stand dismissed. 30. Grounds No. 5 and 6 of the Revenue s appeals relate to challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 24,50,000/- and ₹ 1,94,733/- made by the A.O. on the basis of loose paper No. 48, 49 and 54. 31. At the outset, the ld. CIT-DR has vehemently supported the order of the A.O. 32. On the contrary, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that this paper also contains some figures and notings which is a rough dumb paper. The A.O. wrongly presumed that these related to payments made to various persons out of undisclosed sources. The presumption is only a guess work, surmises and conjectures which is baseless and unsubstantiated. 33. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the material placed on record, from perusal of record, we observed that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the additions by holding that the figures on these pages appears to be relating to tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... velopment. The appellant has claimed that it has made provision for development expenses in its books of accounts at ₹ 4,00,95,045/- on the basis of demand notice issued by the JDA, however, no payment was made in the instant year under consideration. The AO has not brought on record any material which may even indicate that these payments were made to the JDA during the year under consideration, hence the addition of ₹ 2,19,03,529/- and ₹ 16,35,800/- made by the AO cannot be sustained, hence deleted. 38. After having gone through the facts of the case and after hearing the arguments, we observed from perusal of the record that these papers pertained to development expenses of ₹ 2,10,05,225/- for residential land admeasuring 117340.52 square yards and ₹ 8,98,304/- and ₹ 16,35,800/(14,67,323 + 1,68,477) for commercial development. The assessee had claimed that it has made provision for development expenses in its books of accounts at ₹ 4,00,95,045/- on the basis of demand notice issued by the JDA, however, no payment was made in the instant year under consideration. The AO has not brought on record any material which may even indicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of ₹ 1,17,500/- being 25% of ₹ 3,80,000/- made by the A.O. cannot be sustained in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs S. Khader Sen (Supra) and Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Roshan Lal (Supra). Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere or deviate from the findings so recorded by the ld. CIT(A) qua this issue and we uphold the same and consequently, these grounds raised by the Revenue stand dismissed. 43. Ground No. 10 of the Revenue s appeal relates to challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 17,500/- made by the A.O. on the basis of loose paper No. 69. 44. In this regard, the ld. CIT-DR has vehemently supported the order of the A.O. 45. On the other hand, the ld AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and has submitted that the addition of ₹ 17500/- estimating profit thereon @ 25% is wrong as profit from transaction accounted in books of account on completion of sale. The addition is wrong and uncalled for which deserves to be deleted. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b paper. The A.O. without any cogent material or basis treated it as net profit of assessee company for the year under consideration simply on guess work which is baseless and unsubstantiated. The addition made is wrong and uncalled for which deserves to be deleted. 51. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the material placed on record. From perusal of the record, we found that the ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue in para 3.22.2 of his order and the same is reproduced below: 3.22.2 Determination : The AO has made an addition of ₹ 2,57,19,000/- on the basis of page no. 71 stating that net profit was calculated thereof after deducting the expenses. I could not find out what were the figures whose difference was ₹ 2,57,19,000/-. These notings are nothing but some scribbling which are not making any sense. It may be mentioned that the AO has made the huge addition without application of mind. Thus, the addition of ₹ 2,57,19,000/- made by the AO cannot be sustained and hence hereby deleted. 52. After having gone through the facts of the case and after hearing the arguments, we observed that the AO has made an addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g and bad in law and is hereby deleted. (3) The ground No. 2(ii) of appeal relates to objecting to the addition of ₹ 6,57,000/- on the basis of page No. 45 (undated). This paper is with noting of estimate on which some figures mentioned which is a dumb paper. The paper has no connection with business of the company. The assumption of Ld. A.O. that notings are sales and estimated net profit is baseless and unsubstantiated. The addition is wrong and uncalled for. (4) The ground No. 2(iii) of appeal relates to objecting to the addition of ₹ 20,52,000/- on the basis of page No. 50 (undated). This paper also contains some figures and notings, names etc. which is a rough dumb paper. The Ld. A.O. wrongly assumed that it pertains to sales of ₹ 82,10,00/- and made addition of profit @ 25% thereon. The actual sale transactions are recorded in books of account of company. The presumption is only a guess work, surmises and conjectures which is baseless and unsubstantiated. The addition sustained is wrong and bad in law and is hereby deleted. (5) The ground No. 2(iv) of appeal relates to objecting the addition of ₹ 9,40,000/- 2,30,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee, no disallowance of the development charges paid to above said contractor can be made. The Ld. AR also relied upon the following judgement of jurisdictional ITAT, Bench Jaipur in case of ACIT v. Girdhari Lal Bargoti ITA No. 757/JP/2012. In the said judgement the co-ordinate Bench has held as under: The recipient are NBFC, therefore, no possible to not be assessed to tax, these payments were related for A.Y. 2009-10 and return for A.Y. 2009-10 already might have been filed by these NBFC by including these interests receipts as their income. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) . Further the hon ble ITAT, Hyderabad Bench-B has also taken the similar view and confirmed the order of the Ld. CIT(A), who allowed the appeal observing as follows:- After considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) observed that there is strength in the submissions of the assessee as the recipients were well known companies and since the amounts were paid, they need not be brought u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. He, therefore, deleted the addition made by the AO . The Ld. AR also places reliance on the judgement of hon ble Apex Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny supporting/corroborative evidence. We have perused the impounded paper nos. 25 to 28. It is noticed that the jottings and notings in the impounded papers are rough in nature and not having any supporting documentary evidence. We are in agreement with the submission of the ld. A/R that when there was no purchase of land in the year under appeal, then no registration expenses etc. are received to be incurred on account of registration etc by the assessee in the year under appeal. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of ₹ 2,08,002/- sustained by the ld. CIT (A) is unwarranted and the same is directed to the deleted. 58.3 Ground No. 2(ii): This ground relates to the addition of ₹ 6,57,000/- made on the basis of impounded page no. 45 undated. The AO made the addition on the basis of notings on the impounded paper on account of sale and purchase of 266 sq. yards of land. The ld A/R argued that the land area in this case is determined as mentioned by the ld. CIT (A) at page 11 of his order and the sales are recorded in the books of account. The ld. A/R further submitted that the calculations on the paper are rough calculations made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act that part of the amount are recorded in the books of accounts. It is admitted fact that in real estate transactions there must be some documentary evidence i.e. sale agreement, receipts etc. which establishes that any purchase / sale of land has taken place between the assessee and the prospective buyer. The ld. CIT (A) enhanced the addition without giving any opportunity to the assesseee and the enhancement made is completely based on surmises, conjectures and presumption. From perusal of the orders of the AO and ld. CIT (A) it is fully verifiable that the addition made is not supported by any legal corroborative documentary evidence. We also found that no evidence is produced by the revenue and accordingly the notings on the impounded papers are not supported by any other legal documentary evidences. The paper is undated and having only rough notings. We are of the considered view that as per law, no addition can be made on suspicion and without any legal supporting evidences and accordingly the addition made qua this issue is hereby directed to delete. Hence, we direct to delete the addition. 58.5 Ground No.2(iv): This ground of appeal relates to objecting the additions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal the ld. CIT (A) sustained the addition of ₹ 1,60,000/- and the remaining addition of ₹ 3,67,500/- was deleted. We observed that the addition was made on the basis of rough notings without any supporting documentary evidences which is mandatory for real estate purchase and sale transactions. It is a settled position of law that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures. We noticed that the notings on the impounded papers are not supported by any other documentary evidences. The paper is undated and having only rough notings, therefore, we are of the considered view that as per law, no addition can be made on suspicion and without any legal supporting evidences and accordingly the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) is deleted. 58.7 Ground No. 2(vi): This ground of appeal relates to objecting the addition of ₹ 9,98,529/- made on the basis of impounded page no. 64 undated. The facts of the case are mentioned in para 3.16.2 of the ld. CIT (A) s order. It is apparent and verifiable from the seized paper as well as order of the ld. CIT (A) that the addition has been made purely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) . Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we find merit in the contention of the ld. AR and we direct to delete the addition made qua this issue. 58.9 Ground No. 2(viii): This ground relates to confirming the addition of ₹ 2,24,50,065/- U/s 68 of the Act. We observed from perusal of the record that these advances were received from persons who booked plots from company as prospective purchaser of plots. It is submitted that when assessee company gave possession or allotment letter of plot to purchaser the same was shown as sales in books of accounts of company and till then amount received from them has been shown as advance. It is submitted that the complete copy of ledger account is submitted with the A.O. and transactions are verifiable from possession letter or allotment letter and other relevant records of company. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside this issue back to the file of the A.O. for verification with regard to the fact that the sales are recorded in books of accounts and the same had been accepted in asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at out of the asking price, the discount, rebates are being asked by the buyers and allowed by the seller. We noticed that for the selling price mentioned by the ld. CIT (A), he has not brought any piece of evidence which support the working out the rate as mentioned by the ld. CIT (A). We noticed that the ld. CIT (A) has failed to make any enquiry in this regard either from the buyers or from the brokers to substantiate his finding that whether the alleged persons have booked the land at the rate mentioned in the impounded data. Without making any enquiry from the concerned persons and also not bringing any supporting documentary evidences on record, no addition on the basis of presumption and suspicion can be made to the income of the assessee. We noticed that from the relevant part of the ld. CIT (A) s order it is apparently verifiable that the entire working has been done by the ld. CIT (A) on the basis of presumption and estimation. Further, We noticed that whatever land for colonization and for carving plots was purchased by assessee company has been recorded in its books of accounts duly audited and it is not the case of assessing officer that assessee company acquired some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
