Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
ORDER
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Pune [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 13.11.2017 for the assessment year 2014-15.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of real estate. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2014-15 was filed on 27.11.2014 Rs.3,17,94,804/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 22.12.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at a total income of Rs.1,91,15,259/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.5,09,10,063/- being the amount of on-money consideration received on sale of flats in the project known as “Skywing”. The factual matrix of the addition is as under :- During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2013-14 in the case of M/s. Sairang Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., a sister concern of the assessee company, it was found by the Assessing Officer that while verifying the material impounded during the course of survey operations at Sl. No.9, Page No.71, it was found that the assessee had collected the on-money consideration aggregating to Rs.5,09,10,063/- in cash in respect of a project, namely, “Skywing” carried out by the assessee company. During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2013-14, it appears that the Authorized Representative of the assessee company had stated before the Assessing Officer that this 2014-15. The details of amount collected in cash towards project, Skywing is found at Page No.71, Sl. No.9, the details of which are set out by the Assessing Officer at page no.2 of the assessment order. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant had denied having received any on-money consideration and further submitted that this fact can be cross-verified by the buyers by providing details such as, name, address, e-mail, contact nos. etc of the flat purchasers from whom the appellant had alleged to have received the on-money consideration. However, the said contention of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer by holding that the Authorized Representative of the appellant had agreed to offer this amount to tax in the assessment year 2014-15 during the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2013-14. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer brought to tax the entire alleged on-money consideration of Rs.5,09,10,063/-. The Assessing Officer also made same addition on protective basis by spreading over the entire amount of Rs.5,09,10,063/- over a period of six years for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15.
Being aggrieved by the above addition, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order considering the details of the amount received from the customers as well as considering the statements recorded u/s 133A of the Act, confirmed the addition by rejecting the contention of the appellant that it is only a rough estimate and held that the retraction of the statement recorded u/s 133A of the Act is not valid.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. When the matter was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. On perusal of the order sheet, it would be clear that the matter was listed on several occasions, the matter was adjourned at the request of the assessee, therefore, we proceed to dispose of the matter on merits after hearing the ld. Sr. DR. 6. The assessee raised the five grounds of appeal
. The ground of appeal no.5 is general in nature, dismissed as such. The ground of appeal no.1 challenges the addition of Rs.5,09,10,063/- made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the addition was made on the basis of rough estimate and does not reflect the actual sale consideration. The ground of appeal no.2 was raised seeking the deduction of expenses in relation to the addition made on account of alleged on-money consideration. The ground of appeal no.3 challenges the addition on the ground that the entire amount cannot be supposed to the net profit element embedded in sale consideration. The ground of appeal no.4 was raised seeking the benefit of telescoping unaccounted income expenditure in the group concerned.
7. We heard the ld. Sr. DR and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to the addition of Rs.5,09,10,063/- on account of alleged on-money consideration in the project “Skywing” carried out by the assessee company. It is undisputed fact that as per the seized material, it is found that the appellant had received on-money consideration of Rs.5,09,10,063/- in the project “Skywing”, the details of which were set out by the ld. CIT(A) in para 5.2 of the CIT(A)’s order. It is also a matter of record that during the course of survey operations the assessee had admitted the fact of receipt of on-money consideration. It is only during the course of assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer, the appellant had denied having receipt on-money