ITO WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S PRISHA NOVA REALTY P LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3975/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 March 2022AY 2015-1611 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO. The AO appealed this deletion, arguing that the payment of the liability was not proven and that the sale of another property to settle this liability lacked legal documentation.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a property developer, purchased land for Rs. 2,61,24,000. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 2,51,24,000 on account of cessation of liability under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of cessation of liability without proper proof of payment or supporting legal documents for the settlement of the liability.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 41(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri V. Tripathi, DR
For Respondent: Shri Dr. P Daniel, AR
Hearing: 10.01.2022Pronounced: 08.03.2022
1.

This appeal is filed by the learned Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(4), Mumbai [ The ld AO ] against the order passed by The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai [ The Ld CIT (A)] dated 07.03.2019 for Assessment Year 2015-16 raising the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 251,24,000/- made on account of cessation of liability for purchase of immovable

2.

Whether an the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs 251,24,000/- made on account of cessation of liability for purchase of immovable property, without considering the fact that in immovable property purchase the consideration is required to be paid as per registered deed, which is a legal document and the said payments were not evident in the case of assessee.

3. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in considering the submission of assessee that liability of Rs 251,24,000/- was paid through sale of another property at Vorsoli, when in fact the said claim was not supported by legal documents and valuation proofs.

4. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in considering the submission of assessee that liability of Rs 251,24,000/- was paid through sale of another property at Varsoli, when in fact the said claim was not proved by assessee during the remand proceeding.

5. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs 251,24,000/- made on

3.

The order under section 143(3) of the income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act’) was passed by the learned Assessing Officer making an addition of ₹2,51,24,000/- on account of cessation of liability under section 41(1) of the Act and total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹2,52,71,640/-.

4.

The assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT(A), who deleted the addition , therefore, the learned Assessing Officer is in appeal before us.

5.

The brief facts of the case shows that during the year under consideration as per agreement dated 02.05.2014, assessee has purchased non-agricultural land at Karjat,

7.

The learned Departmental Representative submitted that assessee has purchased the property and consideration was also shown by the seller amounting to ₹2,51,24,000/- as received and still in the balance sheet

8.

The learned Authorised Representative submitted a paper book containing 64 pages. He referred to the balance sheet of the assessee and submitted that in the list of sundry creditors at Serial No. 8, the assessee has shown ₹2,51,24,000/- as payable to Tania Infrastructure Private Limited. He further submitted that confirmation is submitted by Tania Infrastructure Limited, wherein the above sum is also shown by the seller as receivable from the assessee. He also referred to the affidavit of the

9.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities.

12.

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08.03.2022.

More judgments on Section 41(1)

All 1,943 judgments and leading authorities on Section 41(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →