9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The grounds taken by the revenue are as under: - 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer made thorough verification about the existence of both M/s. Gayathri Infrastructure and Developers & M/s. Venkateshwara Developers and ascertained that both the entities were found to be non-existing. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in recognizing the fact that despite having huge receipts viz Rs. 1,79,82,560/- paid to M/s. Gayathri Infrastructure and Developers & Rs. 1,38,50,560/- paid to M/s. Venukateshwara Developers, both the entities did not file their return of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , contended that the payments were made to these entities in the course of purchase of land as they were power of attorney holders of the land owners. Further, the payments were through banking channel and proper KYC documents were obtained before making these payments. Therefore, no such reduction could have been made by Ld. AO. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), after perusal of sale deeds, rendered factual findings that the payments to the two entities was made as Power of Attorney holders of the sellers. These payments were appearing in the respective sale deeds as tabulated in para 6.3.1 of the impugned order. The impugned payments to the sellers as well as to both these entities was duly documented in the sale deeds which clearly outline the sale co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore than what was specified in the sale deeds nor was there any evidence suggesting that the payments were made for purposes other than the land purchase. The Ld. AO has made adjustment solely on the ground that the POA holders could not be traced and they had not filed their income tax returns. However, both these reasons do not invalidate the payments made for the land which were properly documented in the sale deeds. This fact would not change the legal validity of the transaction and assessee could not be denied its legitimate claim. Therefore, the impugned reduction of WIP has rightly been reversed by Ld. CIT(A). We order so.
6. The appeal stands dismissed.
Order pronounced on 05th May, 2025. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
