9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1048X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar under consideration had disclosed income from salary (Pension income), Business Profession, Long term capital and short term capital gain and income from other sources. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 06-08-2018 along with query letter and the case was fixed on 13-08-2018. Some details were uploaded by the assessee on 11-08-2018. On perusal of the details furnished by the assessee, the AO observed during the year under consideration that the assessee had sold land at Chittora Up-Tehsil, Madhorajpura, District Jaipur on 22-06-2015 which was the inherited property measuring 53.08 bigha. The said land was sold by the assessee to M/s. Marigold Buildtech (P) Ltd. As per the sale deed the sale consideration of the land sold was Rs. 5,75,00,000/-. However, the Stamp Registering Authority assessed the value of this land at Rs. 6,91,36,980/-. The AO while computing the long term capital gain on the land noted that the assessee took the sale consideration at Rs. 5,75,00,000/- instead of Rs. 6,91,36,980/-. The AO observed that as the stamp registering authority adopted the higher rate for registering the sale document, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 50C the value adopted by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been claimed to have made in cash thus it cannot be verified from any independent source. The copy of receipt filed by the assessee from the so called brokers is dated 22.06.2017 which is neither the date of initial agreement nor the date of registering document. Moreover this document is a self serving document. It is pertinent to mention that the assessee himself was the Director of the company to which the land was sold by the assessed therefore it cannot be accepted that there was any need of any brokerto get the deal materialized. In the registered sale deed there is no reference of any broker. Moreover the Witnesses signing the registered document are also different person. None of the person to whom brokerage payment has been claimed to have made had signed at any place in the registered sale. document or initial sale agreement. In view of these facts, as discussed above, I held that the claim of brokerage payment is an afterthought of the assessee to reduce his tax liability and to absence of any Independent evidence and not having any prudence, cannot be allowed to the assessee This will result in an addition of Rs. 9,78,500/- to the income of the assessed. '' 2.2 In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... humble assessee in respect of each ground of appeal most respectfully beg to submit: Ground No. 1: Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the action and finding of the Ld. AO regarding making disallowance of Brokerage payment of Rs. 9,78,500/- paid in respect of sale of Land. 1. The appellant is an individual who derived his income from Salary (Pension), Business or Profession, Capital Gain and other sources. The appellant for the assessment year of 2016-17 filed his return of income on 29.09.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 5,72,67,720/-. (PB No. 1-6) 2. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of IT Act, 1961 by Ld. ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur, vide assessment order dated 13.11.2018 at an assessed income of Rs. 6,98,83,200/-. (PB No. 7-12) 3. The AO by invoking the provisions of section 50C of IT Act, 1961 considered the DLC value/ Stamp Value as determined by sub-registrar on date of registry of land as Rs. 6,91,36,980/- instead of DLC value/ Stamp Value as on the date of agreement of Rs. 5,75,00,000/- as declared by the assessee. 4. The AO further disallowed the brokerage payment of Rs. 9,78,500/- paid in respect of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave entered into sale agreement of land on 25/03/2023 but claimed payment of Brokerage on 22/06/2015. 13. In this regard it is submitted that Brokerage is paid only after complete receipt of sales consideration / on or after the date of Registry. In the present case of the appellant, the sale agreement was entered on 25/03/2013 (PB No. 43-47) on receipt of advance payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- wherein it was decided that the complete payment of Sales Consideration of Rs. 5,75,00,000/- would be paid within 3 years. Thereafter the registered sale deed was executed on 22/06/2015 (PB No. 48-57) after receipt of complete sales consideration. In such a scenario, generally a prudent person will make payment of Brokerage after receipt of complete sales consideration/ on or after the date of Registry. Hence this allegation of Ld. AO is also totally baseless, unjustified and deserves to be quashed. 14. It is also important here to mention that the Ld. AO in Assessment Order has made another allegation that the appellant himself was Director of the company to which the land was sold by the appellant, therefore, it cannot be accepted that there was any need of any broker to get the deal materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Renwal, Jaipur. 1,95,000/- 2. Shri Prahlad Chittora, Renwal, Jaipur. 1,95,000/- 3. Shri Sukhdev 229, Kumharo ka Mohalla, Chittora, Phagi, Jaipur. 1,95,000/- 4. Shri Mohan Lal Gurjar 36, Gurjaro Ka Mohalla, Balkhandiya, Tonk, Jaipur. 1,95,000/- 5. Shri Mukesh Kumar Choudhary 3, Sujya Chotu Ki dhnai, Rupvas, Tehsil Chaksu, Jaipur. 1,98,500/- Total 9,78,500/- From the record, it is noted that the assessee had submitted the copy of ID Proof i.e. Aadhar Card showing name and address of the above 05 persons which is available at PB No. 58-63. It is also noted that the assessee had submitted the payment voucher and signed receipt of brokerage payment amounting to Rs. 9,78,500/- as proof which is available at PB No. 64-65. It is also noted from the assessment order wherein the objection of the AO is that ''In this agreement there is no reference of any broker in the sale transaction. This document does not bear any signature of witness, it is only signed by the assessee and the director of the purchaser company. The Bench feels that there is no requirement of getting signature or putting the name of signature of the broker which is not part and parcel of the agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
