DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,’ए’
यायपीठ, चे ई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

ी एबी टी. वक
, ाियक सद एवं
एवं
एवं
एवं

ी अिमता भशुा, लेखासदकेसम

BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA Nos. 2978 - 2984/Chny/2024
&
CO Nos. 11-17/Chny/2025
िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23

The DCIT,
Central Circle-2(1),
Chennai.

M/s Radiance Realty-
Developers India Ltd.,
Radiance Towers, 1st Floor,
33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [PAN: AACCN5152H]
(अपीलाथ/Appellant)

(यथ/Respondent/Cross
Objector)
ITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024
िनधारणवष/Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2022-23

M/s Radiance Realty Developers-
India Ltd.,
Radiance Towers, 1st Floor,
33 Feet Road, Anna Salai, Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032. v.
The DCIT,
Central Circle-2(1),
Chennai.
[PAN: AACCN5152H]

(अपीलाथ/Appellant)

(यथ/Respondent)

Assessee by :
Mr.T.Banusekar, Advocate
Department by :
Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT
सुनवाईक तारीख/Date of Hearing
:
27.02.2025
घोषणाक तारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
02.05.2025

PER ABY T. VARKEY These cross appe the orders of the Learn Chennai [ in short ‘Ld. passed by the Dy. CIT, the Assessment Years [ issues involved are com were heard together. B similar arguments on convenience and brevity order. 2. Before we advert first be relevant to cull brief in respect of cert 1961 (hereinafter refer assessee, on 14.02.20 notices u/s 148 of the which, the assessments 147/143(3) of the Act w AO also completed the ITA Nos.29 & Others (A (AY 2 M/s. Radiance Realty D ::2 ::

आदेश / O R D E R
Y, JM:
als by the Revenue and the assess ned Commissioner of Income Tax (
CIT(A)’] all dated 25.09.2024 aga
Central Circle-2(1), Chennai [in sho
[in short ‘AYs’] 2016-17 to 2022-23
mmon, all the appeals for all the ass
Both the parties also argued them t these issues. Accordingly, for y, we dispose all the appeals by th to the grounds taken in the cross ap out the basic facts of the case and ain AYs. Search u/s 132 of the In rred to as “the Act”) was conduct
023. Consequent to the search, t e Act for AYs 2016-17 to 2021-2
s under section (hereinafter referre were completed all dated 27.03. 202
scrutiny assessment for AY 2022-23

78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
see arise out of (Appeals) - 19, ainst the orders ort ‘the AO’] for 3. Since several sessment years together raising the sake of his consolidated ppeals, it would effect of law in ncome Tax Act, ted against the the AO issued
2, pursuant to ed to as “u/s.”)
24. Further, the 3 u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.03.2024
Rupees made by the AO
2016-17 to 2022-23 are Sl.
Issues
AY 2016-
17
AY 201
18
1. Addition of Unaccounted cash collected from customers for sale of flats
1,87,27,107
2,52,19,
2. Addition of cash collected from sale of plots in Project
Residencia
-
-
3. Addition u/s 43CA for short admission of business income
-
-
4. Addition of Unaccounted scrap sales in cash
-
-
5. Addition of bogus purchases from suppliers of steel
-
-
6. Disallowance of salary paid to Viswanathan without any services
8,21,667
8,21,6
7. Addition u/s 40A(3) & 37
-
-
3. It is noted that th additions/disallowances
ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::3 ::

. The summary of the additions/d
O which are in dispute in the cross- e as follows: -
17-
AY 2018-
19
AY 2019-
20
AY 2020-
21
,672
3,53,50,730
2,61,86,252
8,06,82,126
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8,34,67,815
67
8,48,667
8,31,000
8,31,000
5,00,00,000
-
- e reasoning given by the AO for ma were verbatim same across all A 78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
isallowances in appeals for AYs
AY 2021-22
AY 2022-23
6
10,71,58,995
24,95,02,394
79,09,970
23,38,625
51,36,281
58,75,349
74,45,751
75,44,678
5
4,40,20,400
15,96,75,209
8,19,660
8,19,660
-
- aking the above
AYs. Hence, for the sake of convenience adjudicate each of the c

e, and to avoid repetition of facts; w common issues across all AYs before ion made on account of unacc of flats
Revenue’s appeal and Ground Nos ion for AY 2016-17
Revenue’s appeal and Ground Nos ion for AY 2017-18
Revenue’s appeal and Ground Nos.
ion for AY 2018-19
Revenue’s appeal and Ground Nos.
ion for AY 2019-20
e Revenue’s appeal and Ground ion for AY 2020-21
e Revenue’s appeal and Ground ion for AY 2021-22
e Revenue’s appeal and Ground ion for AY 2022-23
late to the additions made by the A cted from customers on sale of flat essee is engaged in the business of d ects at Chennai, Bengaluru and Coim as carried out at the business pr

78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
we deem it fit to e us together.
counted cash s.6 to 11of the s.5 to 10of the 10 to 15 of the 5 to 10 of the Nos. 5 of the Nos. 5 of the Nos. 2 of the AO in relation to ts. The facts as development of mbatore. Search remises of the assessee on 14.02.202
vide ANN/JNKK/RRDIL/
electronic data seized f comprised of two exc
'Kingston Data Traveler
(EB).xlsx recovered fr
WhatsApp conversation
(‘CRMs’) that they were received in respect of t course of search, it w acronym for ‘Extra Bu
Karthiga, CRM staff fro gave her sworn stateme to Q.No.13 put forth to “Extra Benefits” and fur means payment receiv payments received w reporting purpose. The also corroborated by th and Accounts staff, Ms sought an explanation r
Q No. 17 and Smt. Kar
ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::5 ::

23 in which electronic datawas fou
/ED/S. The Authorized Officer no from the possession of the employ el sheets viz., (i) "Expense deta r 16 GB Pen drive" and (ii) "project om E-Drive'. It was further gath ns between the Customer Relation e using a term "EB" for certain paym the flat / plot sold / booked. Upon as initially explained that the term udget’. Later on, the concerned e om whose possession this excel sh ent u/s 132(4) of the Act, in which w her, she had admitted that the te rther in response to Q.No.15, she s ved in cash and not recorded in ere communicated to the accou
Authorized Officer noted that, this e he WhatsApp conversation between s. Pinki. The Authorized Officer is regarding this particular WhatsApp c rthiga is noted to have confirmed th

78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
und and seized oted that, the yees, inter alia ils- EB.xlsx in t payables Final ered from the nship Managers ments which are enquiry in the m ‘EB’ was an employee Smt.
eet was found, while answering rm “EB” means stated that “EB”
n tally and EB unts team for explanation was n Smt. Karthiga noted to have conversation at he conversation between herself and communicated to Smt P
Tower I of Suprema Pro
24.11.2021, a custome given 8 Lakhs in cash revised sent”, in which t
4.2
In view of the abo have analyzed the seize was following a unique proceeds. The CRM staf component involved in “Extra Budget / Benefit”
the same would be com reduce the cash receive
Budget” has been redu by the customer as a modus operandi is note
Smt. Rajeshwari who a receipts and that such Likewise, Shri S Arjun
ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::6 ::

Smt.
Pinki and explained th
Pinki that, on 17.11.2021, a custom oject had given Rs. 15 Lakhs in cash er of A1105 of Tower I of Suprem and Smt. Pinki responded to it b the term ‘BCS’ stood for “Booking C ove explanation, the Authorized Off ed electronic data and gathered tha deceptive method to manage its un ff would maintain excel records in sale of flats were separately mentio
”. As and when the customers would mmunicated to the accounts staff w ed from the “Booking Cost Sheet” a ced, and such revised statement w n acknowledgment for the payme ed to have been confirmed by anot also accepted that “EB” noting’s de term was used to avoid unwarra n who was the CRM for Bangalor

78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
hat, she had mer of B1503 of h and further on ma Project had by stating “Bcs ost Sheet”.
ficer is noted to at the assessee naccounted sale which the cash oned as “EB” or d pay the cash, who would then as if the “Extra would be signed ent made. This ther CRM Staff, noted the cash nted attention.
re project also admitted to this modus cash received from cust
4.3
Thereafter, the In Veera Kumar who also that are not entered in accounts of M/s. Radia he also stated about the the same to the Smt. R of the collections mad
Veera Kumar while answ statement stated that, vide annexure ANN/JN team and was predom
'project payables final unaccounted cash rece wise and date wise.
4.4
All the above affir placed before the CEO statements of the abov the customers which w books of accounts. The ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::7 ::

operandi and submitted the details tomer towards the sales.
nvestigating team also confronted stated that EB means unaccounted the tally and it is not accounted i nce Realty Developers India Limite e entire process of collection of EB a Rajeswari, CRM (Head). He also subm e in the month of January 2023. wering to Q. No. 17 and 18 in the the Kingston 16GB pen drive imag
KK/RRDIL/ED/8 was maintained by inantly used by him and the exce
(EB)’ contains details of EB re eipts that were received from cus rmations of the employees are note
O, Shri. T.N. Madan, who also ve persons and admitted that cash were recorded as “EB”was not acc ereafter, the statement of the Man

78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
s of “EB” or the the CFO, Shri.
d cash receipts in the books of ed. In addition, and reporting of mitted the copy
Further, Shri.
recorded sworn ged and seized y the accounts el sheet named ceipts i.e. the stomers project ed to have been confirmed the h received from counted in the naging Director,

Shri Varun Manian was in his answer to Q. No.
which comprises of cas addition, he also confirm
Smt. Karthiga, Shri. TN data from the seized assessee had receive cash,during the period f
“EB” in the seized data.
Asst Yea
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
2019-20
2020-2
2021-22
2022-23
TOTAL
4.5
It is observed th alsoconfirmed by the M statement recorded u/s “Q.31 Now I am
CEO of M/s Rad search proceedin premise of M/s Ra
ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::8 ::

recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 1
21 also confirmed that EB means h component and other extra paym med the depositions of Smt. Rajesw
Madan and others. Further, on com material, the search team ascert d a total amount of Rs. 83,2
from FY 2013-14 to 2022-23,which The relevant break-up is noted to b ar
Unaccounted cash receipts fro various projects
6
Rs.1,97,05,94
7
Rs.2,34,08,88
8
Rs.3,12,40,21
9
Rs.3,53,50,73
0
Rs.3,27,32,81
1
Rs.10,08,52,65
2
Rs.13,39,48,74
3
Rs.24,95,02,39
L
Rs.83,23,20,157
at, the above findings of the sea
Managing Director and the relevant
132(4) of the Act is noted as under showing you the signed statement of Mr diance Realty Developers India Ltd. Give ng u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
adiance Realty at Guindy, Chennai. Please

78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
15.02.2023 who
“Extra Budget”
ments made. In wari, Smt. Pinki, mpilation of the ained that the 23,20,157/- in was termed as be as follows: - om
45/-
84/-
13/-
30/-
15/-
58/-
44/-
94/-
7/- rch team were excerpts of his r: - r.T N Madan, n during the in the office go through it and confirm the the statement of your explanation.
A.31 Yes Sir I ha
N Madan and I c
Radiance Realty D the unaccounted
22-23. And with request you to pr
4.6
In light of the ab employees, CFO, CEO &
reopened the income-ta u/s 148 of the Act. The to have filed the respec the above unaccounted therein, to tax. The AO show cause to the asse unaccounted cash rece consideration had not respective assessment
21.02.2024 is noted to cash from customers on objected to the evident admissibility as well. T that, Smt. Karthiga fr
ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::9 ::

same. If you find any objection or any d f Mr. T N Madan, please mention the sam
.
ave gone through the entire 15 page state concur with the statement of Shri. Madan
Developers India Ltd. I admit that Rs. 83,2
sales of M/s Radiance Realty from FY 20
respect to the Bogus purchase as state rovide me 15 days time to reconcile the sam bove seized electronic material, dep
& the Managing Director, the AO is ax assessments of the assessee by i e assessee, in response to the notic ctive return(s) of income wherein it sale proceeds by way of profit elem
O however in the course of the asse essee, requiring it to explain as to eipts in the respective financial been offered as income in its t year(s). The assessee in thei o have denied having received an n sale of flats. The assessee is note iary value of the seized electronic m
The assessee further is found to h rom whose possession the electr

78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
iscrepancy in me and offer ment of Mr.T
, CEO of M/s
23,20,157/- is 013-14 to FY ed by you, I me.”
positions of the s noted to have issue of notices ces, is observed offered 20% of ment embedded essment issued why the entire year(s) under hands for the r reply dated ny unaccounted ed to have also material and its have contended ronic data was seized, used to handl feedback, and therefore laptop was of no releva who confirmed the stat conversation with her r given such a statement that her statement wa employees would hav collections of less than of accounts to represe under mistaken belief
Managing Director, Shri which he had also h possession of Smt. Ka purported electronic dat
4.7
The AO however i by the assessee and ha impugned order. The A persons whose statem answers while recordin reference to the facts a ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::10 ::

le customer issues, loans, custom e according to the assessee, the dat ance. With regard to the statement tement of Smt. Karthiga and also egarding collection of “EB” was sub t under coercion and therefore the a as also not reliable. It was expla ve misunderstood the regular i
Rs. 2 lacs which was also accounte ent unaccounted cash and thus ga and confusion. According to the i Varun Manian had also retracted h highlighted infirmities in the dat arthiga and therefore it was subm ta was not reliable.
is noted to have rejected the explan as set out his detailed reasons for t
AO is observed to have inter alia s ments had been recorded have ng the statement u/s 132(4) of as per the seized material and thus

78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
mizations, and ta found on her t of Smt. Pinki, had WhatsApp bmitted to have assessee urged ained that, the ndividual cash ed in the books ave statements assessee, the his statement in ta found from mitted that the nation put forth the same in the stated that, the deposed their f the Act with s their answers were corroborated by th further held that the a evidence and had rathe any basis. The AO also the contents of the seiz further held that the st evidentiary value and th year was invalid. The AO
20% of the unaccoun according to AO, the e brought to tax and the income of the appellant
4.8
Aggrieved by the have preferred an appea is noted to have rejecte admissibility of the ele
AO’s findings, in light o u/s 132(4) of the Act, cash proceeds on sale the assessee on the l proceeds could not be ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::11 ::

he material seized in the course of assessee was not able to disprove r relied only on bald retractions whi o noted that the assessee was una zed material, as already discussed b tatements recorded u/s 132(4) of t hat empty retractions that too after
O further noted that the assessee its nted cash receipts as their inco ntire unaccounted cash sale receip erefore added the following sums in the respective years impugned b above order of the AO, the assess al before the Ld. CIT(A). On appeal, ed the legal plea of the assessee o ctronic evidence. The Ld. CIT(A) a f the seized material and the statem that the assessee was in receipt o of flats. However, the Ld. CIT(A) imited aspect that, the entire un brought to tax as their income and 78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
search. The AO the facts with ch did not have ble to disprove by us above. He the Act, carried r a lapse of one self had offered ome. However, pts ought to be as undisclosed before us.
see is noted to , the Ld. CIT(A) objecting to the also upheld the ments recorded of unaccounted concurred with accounted sale d that only the profit element embedde estimated the profit elem deleted the balance 80%
this consolidated order now in appeal before us
4.9
Heard both the regarding the admissibi
AO to make the impugn sheets found in the elec the employees were no of the Indian Evidence rightly observed that, procedures mandated certificates u/s 65B of records. The AO is note u/s 65B of Indian Evid
Before us, the Ld. AR certificate or point out
Ld. CIT(A) that there
Section 65B of the I preliminary contention o
ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::12 ::

ed therein was taxable. The Ld. CIT ment at 20% of the unaccounted ca
% sum which was added by the AO of Ld. CIT(A), both the assessee an s.
parties. We first take up the a ility of the electronic evidence relie ned additions. According to the asse ctronic data, the WhatsApp convers t admissible as it did not comply w
Act, 1872. We find that, the lower the Authorized Officer had follo in law and had also obtained f the Act prior to the seizure of ed to have extracted the said certi dence Act, 1872 in the impugned for the assessee was unable to the fallacy therein. We accordingly was no non-compliance with the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and of the assessee stands rejected.

78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
T(A) accordingly sh receipts and O. Aggrieved by nd Revenue are assessee’s plea ed upon by the essee, the excel sations between ith Section 65B authorities had owed the due the necessary such electronic ificate obtained order as well.
controvert this agree with the e provisions of therefore this 4.10 The next plank of seized material were n retracted his stateme permissible on account
Assailing the action of l statements of Smt. Kart the impugned addition
Karthiga was a custome to-day miscellaneous ta customers raised and could have been possi customers and that the to the same. Similarly, was a junior accounts s but was only aware ab etc. for accounting pur than Rs. 2 lacs viz., wit accounted in the books authorities had confuse and coerced her into ad for. He showed us that, search, she had soon
ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::13 ::

assessee’s argument was that, the not reliable and that the Managin ent and therefore no addition t of undisclosed cash receipts from lower authorities, the Ld. AR had a thiga & Smt. Pinky which formed th n was not reliable. He pointed o er relationship staff who was only in asks of handling and resolving the obtaining customer feedbacks and bly been in charge of collecting o
Investigating Officers had forcibly m in respect of Smt. Pinky, it was ar staff who was not involved in the fin out the collection of regular cash f rposes, wherein individual transact thin the permissible limits and such of accounts. According to him, th ed the said employee during the co mitting that the cash collections we
, due to the mental stress which sh after resigned from work as well.

78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
contents of the g Director had was otherwise m sale of flats.
rgued that, the e main basis of out that, Smt.
nvolved in day- queries of the d therefore she on-monies from made her admit rgued that, she nancial matters from customers tions were less h cash was also he Investigating ourse of search re unaccounted he faced during
As far as the statement of Managing had retracted his stat reliable. In so far as th
Ld. AR argued that the suggested extra budget cash component in thes
4.11 Having considered of the assessee, we not he negated the said statements were being recording their stateme material. Accordingly, it not backed by any m mentioned two employe the Managing Director h of time. Accordingly, t contention that, these
Moreover, before us also fact admitted by the Ma retraction nor was the admitted by him with r
ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::14 ::

Director was concerned, he show tement and therefore the same w he contents of the excel sheet was ese were mere estimates and that t allocated for the said flat and tha se loose sheets.
d the aforesaid submissions put fort te that, the same had been examin plea, by observing that, the p g relied upon, had deposed their ents u/s 132(4) of the Act with refe t is not the case that their statemen aterial. Further, the AO has note ees never retracted their statements had retracted from his statement a he AO had rightly observed that, statements were unreliable, was o, the Ld. AR was unable to point ou anaging Director in his statement w e Managing Director able to disp relevant evidence. Hence, in our co

78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
wed us that, he was no longer concerned, the the term “EB”
at there was no h by the Ld. AR ned by AO, and persons whose answers while rence to seized nts were bald or ed that, above s and that even fter a long gap the assessee’s s unacceptable.
ut the mistaken which led to the rove the facts onsidered view, such bald retraction was by the lower author conversations and exce activities and pertained thereof could not be d contained detailed proj light of the statemen collected cash payment
The assessee was neit
“EB” notings nor was extra work carried out i following findings of th objecting to the reliabi given by the employees
“6.5.16
The u submission of the ap search that incrimin found and seized. Th the undersigned in whether the AO is ri employees from who electronic devices conversations betwe has brought out and the AO, the eviden
The search team w appellant company and the associated from each of them.
ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::15 ::

s rightly ignored by the lower autho rities, the electronic data includ l sheets indeed related to the asse to the actual units sold and therefo discarded. The notings therein su ect and unit-wise data, and the “E nts of the employee/s, suggests ts over and above the declared sale ther able to offer plausible explana the assessee able to demonstrate n relation to these units. We thus co he Ld. CIT(A) rejecting the assesse ility of these seized material and t s and Managing Director: - ndersigned has carefully examined t ppellant. There is no doubt that during the ating material in the form of electronic dev he reliance of such electronic devices were this order. Now the issue before the unde ight in relying upon the statement recorded ose possession incriminating evidences in t containing excel sheets and the een the employees. The AO in the assessm d discussed the issue elaborately. As broug nces collected were not from any single was able to confront with various employe about the findings that emanated from t
WhatsApp conversations by recording a Finally, such statements were put forth be 78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
orities. As noted ding whatsapp ssee's business ore the contents ggests that, it EB” heading, in the assessee e consideration.
ation for these the purported ountenance the ee’s contention the statements he above e course of vices were upheld by ersigned is d from the the form of WhatsApp ment order ght out by employee.
ees of the the Laptop statement efore Shri.

Varun Manian, the confirmed the affirm revelation of facts search team was ab for “Extra Budget” a its customers. The evidences collected fact about the colle agreed in the agree clear finding upon e such evidences. Th has rightly rejected regard.”

Managing Director of the Appellant Com mation of his employees. On account of about the term “EB” used by the emplo le to understand the abbreviation of EB wh and the modus operandi in collecting the s e evidences collected are not isolated o and statement recorded conclusively est ction of excess amount over and above th ments. The AO in the assessment order ha each issue raised by the assessee company e undersigned is of the considered view th d the submission of the assessee compa bove, now the next issue for our c e of these cash sales / receipts have element embedded therein has to us, it is noted that the assessee is nt of real estate. In the course of se particularly excel sheets which inter s received on sale of flats. Having basis, it is noted that these not m the customers towards sale of f aging Director, it is observed that on-monies from sale of flats and n receipt constitutes the undisclosed n, in the return(s) of income filed
148 of the Act, the assessee is 78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
mpany. He the above oyees, the hich stands same from ones. The tablish the he amount as made a y in relying hat the AO ny in this consideration is e to be brought be taxed. From engaged in the arch, electronic r alia contained perused these ings suggested flats. From the t, he had only owhere had he income of the in response to noted to have admitted and offered to income element embed case of the Revenue ho sale of flats ought to cannot be a matter of a that, the amount as rec the assessee. For this, w by the Hon’ble Gujara
Industries (258 ITR 6
“3. Having perused t the order made by t satisfied that the Tri section 256(1). It ca sales by itself canno disclosed the sales.
seller of the goods the cost. It is th thatonlyforms part
Therefore, unless th of incurring cost in made by the asse question, whether treated as income o the negative. The re material has been acquiring the good sales.”
4.13 According to the incurrence of any expe argued that the AO had ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::17 ::

o tax 20% of the cash collections dded therein and paid taxes thereo wever is that, the entire on-monies be brought to tax. According to u an argument in the given facts of th ceipts/sales by itself would represen we gainfully rely on the following fin t High Court in the case of CIT
654).
the assessment order made by the Assessi the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribun ibunal was justified in rejecting the applica annot be a matter of an argument that the ot represent the income of the assessee wh
The sales only represent the price receiv for the acquisition of which it has alread he realization of excess over the cost of the profit included in the consideration here is a finding to the effect that investme n acquiring goods which have been sold essee and that has also not been discl entire sum of undisclosed sale proceed of the relevant assessment year answers b ecord goes to show that there is no findin referred to about the suppression of inve ds which have been found subject of u
Ld. CIT DR however, the search enses qua such cash collections and d rightly brought the entire on-mo

78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23) demonstrated before th incur expenses viz., ( registration process, (ii) customer’s requirement like Welcome kits to the pooja arrangements d further contended that, and not incurred any ex been found in the form course of search. We o
Investigating Officer did magnitude which would of the assessee. And as on-monies is treated as the assessee would sho the assessee’s plea th constitute its income.
4.14 The Ld. CIT, DR assessee was unable incurred out of these c
ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::18 ::

. AR brought to our notice that, the he lower authorities that, they we
(i) miscellaneous & incidental Ex
) provide additional amenities prov ts, (iii) additional expenses for furn e customers, Apartment activities e during House-warming ceremonies had the assessee collected such h xpenses, then such cash collections m of some unexplained investment o observe that, apart from these exc dn’t find any unaccounted cash or justify the addition of entire on-mo s rightly pointed out by the Ld.AR th s the income of the assessee, then ow unrealistic outcome. We therefo hat the entire cash receipts cann
R for the Revenue further conten to provide the exact details of cash collections and therefore the b

78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
e assessee had ere required to xpenses during ided as per the nishing the flats tc. & (iv) make s. The Ld. AR huge on-monies s ought to have or asset, in the cel notings, the assets of such onies as income hat if the entire n the profits of re find merit in not be said to nded that, the cash expenses benefit of same should not be given an undisclosed income of t set of facts, similar co
Mumbai Tribunal in the Nos.175 – 178/Mum set-off/benefitof expens assessee was unable t evidences. This Tribun
Revenue and upheld th embedded in on-monies
“42. Scope of Reas order to earn incom business. This prin profits. In a case unaccounting, norm therefore, evidenci
Probably, for this re for the assessing considering the fact judgments are unifo be added as income of Panna Corporat reasonable amount
14 of Tax Appeal No Court OF Madya Pra
654 that ' entire sa his income'. Furthe
(supra), it is settled demonstrate the ge in the cases of this expenditure is alwa transferring onus o approved. Ex conse
ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::19 ::

nd thus the entire proceeds ought he assessee. In this regard, we find ontention was raised by the Reven case of M/s. Prime Developers
./2010 by order dated 22.03.2
ses against on-monies shouldn’t be to substantiate the incurrence of nal is noted to have rejected th e assessee’s plea for estimation of s by observing as under: - sonable Expenditure: Assessee needs to me/profit and it is basic and universal princ ciple applies to both accounted and un of unaccounted profits, due to its very mally, the parties do not maintain evide ng such unaccounted evidences is im ason, the courts have taken conscious view authority to quantify reasonable ex ts of the case and industry. Legally spe orm in asserting that entire sale proceeds s e. Hon’ble High court of Ahmadabad ruled i tion that the " assessee ought to ha for the purpose of receiving such gross pr o 325 of 2000 dt. 16.6.2012). Further, Ho desh held in the case of President Industrie le proceeds of the assessee should not be r, from the judgment in case of Panna C proposition that there is no need for the a enuineness of the claim of unaccounted ex kind. The underlined logic is that the un ays unevidenced and never maintained.
on to the assessee in matters of this k quenti, it is for the AO allow necessarily r

78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23) w that it is xpenditure aking, the should not n the case ave spent rofit' (para on'ble High es 258 ITR e added in Corporation ssessee to xpenditure naccounted
Therefore, ind is not reasonable deduction towards evidences, consideri to extents of net pr legal position on th conclusions on this i the views of the C raised in the revenu
4.15 It was brought to have been affirmed by rendered in ITA No.24
particular argument of t
4.16 We thus are in ag circumstance of the cas be taxed but only the p its hands. On this aspe
Builders, Tribunal in unaccounted on-money on-money receipts sinc above decision of this Hon’ble Gujarat High Co the Hon’bleSupreme Co
37. The relevant finding
“Dismissed the spec judgment dated Jan
52 of 2002 whereby on the ground that n
ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::20 ::

such unaccounted expenditure without d ng the nature of industry and also evidenc ofits earned by the assessee. Considering e matter, we are of the clear-cut opinion issue are certainly erroneous. In principle,
CIT(A) in this regard. Therefore, relevan e's appeals are dismissed.”
our notice that the above findings the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in 452 of 2013. Following the ratio the Revenue is hereby rejected.
greement with the Ld. CIT(A)that, i se, the entire value of on-monies rec rofit element embedded therein was ct, it is noted that in the case of I similar circumstances had held th could be taxed in place of the enti e there is always the unaccounted
Tribunal is noted to have been ourt and the SLP filed against the ju ourt was also dismissed and report gs of Hon’ble Apex Court is noted to cial leave petition filed by the Department a nuary 21, 2002 of the Gujarat High Court y the High Court dismissed the Departmen no substantial question of law arose. The q

78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
demanding es relating the above
, the AO's we uphold nt grounds of this Tribunal n their decision decidendi, this n the facts and ceipts shouldn’t s to be taxed in TO Vs. Anand hat, 8% of the re unaccounted payments. The upheld by the udgment before ted in 265 ITR be as follows:
against the in ITA No.
nt's appeal question of law raised in the Appellate Tribunal's only 8 per cent of taxing it, in the abs stated to be pervers
4.17 We further find th
High Court of Gujara
Organiser (2020) (9) relying on its earlier
Corporation (74 DTR in considering that the for the purpose of rec could be brought to tax the entire receipts. Sim
Hon’ble High Court o
Corporation (158 CTR
4.18 We find that the L the Hon'ble Kerala High
487) wherein also on Court had held that th unaccounted cash rece estate projects. The re taken note is as follows
ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::21 ::

appeal before the High Court was wh finding while directing the Assessing Offi the unaccounted on money receipt instea sence of any evidence of expenditure, cou se.”
hat a similar view had been taken at in the case of PCIT, Surat
TMI 973. In its said order the Hon order passed in the case of DC
89), had observed, that the Tribun assessee ought to have spent reas eiving the amount of on-monies a x was the profit embedded in such r milar view is noted to have been ex of Gujarat in the case of CIT
R 374).
Ld. CIT(A) had also rightly relied on h Court in the case of CIT v.C. Naj similar facts and circumstances, th he profit element ought to be est ipts discovered in relation to sale levant question of law raised by t
: -

78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
hether the icer to tax ad of fully uld not be by the Hon’ble
Vs. Anupam n’ble High Court
CIT vs Panna nal was justified sonable amount and thus, what eceipts and not xpressed by the v. Abhishek the decision of jeeb (411 ITR he Hon’ble High timated on the of flats in real he Revenue as (i) Whether the Tribu tax only on 15% of Section 158BC of the (ii) Ought not the T income is detected on as subject to levy of i

unal was correct in having directed levy of the total receipts disclosed in proceedings
Income Tax Act, 1961 [for brevity, the Act
Tribunal have found that when an und n search, then the entire income has to be ncome tax?
Shri K. Vinod Chandran as then his tion on behalf of DB as under:
of assessment, we notice that on search d is the undisclosed receipts, which the sale consideration in various projects unde ssessee was an Architect and builder, who es and sells them to purchasers. Specific tion received from certain purchasers were ch, on which basis the assessment proceed ection 158BC of the Act. Admittedly these find a place in the accounts. The Assess sale consideration received by the ass materials recovered, as the undisclosed in n first appeal, the assessment order for ed.
s before the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed sales receipts be taken for the purpose was after looking into the statement file net profit from the four projects, in which, of sale consideration. The net profit work statement of the assessee and the Tribun s profits and hence the undisclosed incom ax.
any infirmity in the said direction. We s
(2) of Section 158B of the Act, whic e" as including inter alia any income bas s of accounts or other documents or tr or part of the income, which has not been osed for the purposes of this Act. The prov be levied on the entire receipt of mon

78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
income s under t]?
isclosed treated s Lordship was, conducted e assessee ertaken by constructs details of recovered dings were e were not ing Officer sessee, as ncome and the block d that only of levy of ed by the there was ked out to al directed me for the specifically ch defines sed on an ansactions n or would vision does ney by an assessee and also d undisclosed receipts
7. Here, the sale seizure, was not r returned as income also for the purch development of wh such circumstance undisclosed, has to tax. The Tribunal, a different projects, d taken as the undisc direction was perfec the Act and Sectio provided all the pro
Chapter XIVB. We a of 2009 in favour reject the appeal."
4.20 We further note
Mumbai in the case of A to 257, 544 & 545/M as under:
“Even though it is e receiving premium/
parties, entire rece undisclosed income unaccounted sales/r
4.21 We note that the Hon’ble Bombay High Co
4.22 For the reasons decisions (supra)in the ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::23 ::

does not deem undisclosed income to be s, revealed on search or otherwise.
consideration, which was detected on s reflected in the books of accounts nor e for the subject years. The sale consider hase of apartments in different compl ich was promoted by the respondent/ass s, the income of the assessee, wh be determined for the purpose of levyin fter looking into the net profit of the asses directed 15% of the total undisclosed rece closed income. We are of the opinion tha ctly in tune with the provision under Section on 158BH, which specifies that unless ovisions of the Act, applicable to assessme nswer the questions of law framed in I.T.A of the assessee and against the Revenu that the coordinate Bench of th
ACIT v. Guruprena Enterprises ( um/2010 and 4836/Mum/2009
stablished from seized documents that ass
/on-money on booking of flats belonging eipts of on-money/premium cannot be t of assessee; only net profit rate can be a receipts for making addition."
e above decision has since been a ourt in ITA No. 1849 of 2011. discussed in the foregoing and given facts, we accordingly uphold

78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
the entire earch and the profit ration was exes, the sessee. In ich stood ng income ssee in the eipts to be at the said n 150BB of otherwise ents under . No. 1549
ue and we his Tribunal at (ITA Nos. 255
) had observed sessee was g to third treated as applied on affirmed by the following the theLd CIT(A)’s view that only the profit assessed to tax.
4.23 Now we come to t
The Ld. CIT(A) is noted monies, as offered by observing as under:-
“6.5.29
Now th can be the profit th that can be attribut has not come acro unaccounted investm
….
6.5.31
As bro resulted in identifyin the unaccounted cas option available bef that can be attribut assessment years.
The Income Tax Act tax income when bo are envisaged in sec allowed to be estim
44AD allows to tax
Whereas in section on the presumptive individual tax rates undersigned placing view that only the and not the entire action of the AO in a appellate proceedin regard, the relevant
“Further, with addition is req
ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::24 ::

t element embedded in the on-mon the issue of estimating the profits o d to have estimated the profit at 2
y the assessee in the return(s) he issue before the undersigned is to asce hat is embedded in such unaccounted cas ted as additional business income. The se ss any evidences relating to the expens ments relating to such unaccounted cash re ought out by the appellant, the search ng any unexplained expenditure or investm sh receipts were found. In such a scenario ore the undersigned is to estimate the pro ted as additional business income for the Naturally any estimation should have so t, 1961 provides certain presumptive prov ooks of accounts are not maintained. Som ction 44AD, 44AAD of the Act wherein the mated upon percentage. The provisions xation @ 8% of total receipts as taxabl
44AAD of the Act, tax is not a fixed rate; e income calculated at 8% or 6%, and s are applied based on total receipts.
g reliance upon the above judicial decisio profits embedded in such receipts should receipts as a whole and therefore disagre adding the entire cash receipts. During the ngs, the appellant has made a submissi t extract of the same is reproduced here as hout prejudice to the submissions that quired and considering that no corrobor

78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
ies ought to be of the assessee.
20% of the on- of income, by rtain what sh receipts arch team ses or any eceipts.
h has not ment. Only o, the best ofit margin respective ome basis.
vision(s) to me of these e income is of section e income.
it is based then the Thus, the ons of the d be taxed ees to the e course of on in this under.
t no rative evidence has b an adhoc su purported una offered by the in order to buy prayed that th the purported
However, even appellant that cash receipts submitted tha addition has offered in the r as per the Rs.24,95,02,39
appellant and submissions, t by Rs.4,99,00, in the return o
6.5.32
On per can be seen that the 20% upon such und search. The details o cash receipts are as A.Y.
Income return in original ROI
/154*
R
14
2015-16
8,00,06,030/-
8
2016-17
8,41,87,390/-
8
2017-18
6,81,27,989/-*
7
2018-19
21,32,86,450/-
21
2019-20
20,70,08,700/-
21
2020-21
12,62,67,540/-
16
2021-22
12,67,18,340/-
16
2022-23
27,80,69,230/-
6.5.33
It is ob on record the clai
70,70,146/-. In this ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::25 ::

been brought forward by the Assessing Off um of Rs.4,99,00,479/- being 20% of accounted cash receipts has already appellant in the return of income filed u/s y peace and avoid litigation. It is most hu e adhoc sum of Rs.4,99,00,479/- being 20
unaccounted cash receipts may be accepte n if it is considered that the contention of an adhoc 20% of the purported unaccou is not to be accepted, it is most hu at the Assessing Officer while computing not considered the sum of Rs.4,99,00,4
return of income but has added the full am purported excel sheet to the tune
94/- while computing the total income of d therefore without prejudice to the a the disallowance at the least is to be red
,479/- since the same has been already off of income.”
usal of the assessment order(s) passed by e AO has specifically narrated about the ad disclosed cash receipts identified during the of the additional income and 20% of the u under:
Income
Returned u/s 48 of the Act
Unaccounted income quantified on account of “EB”
Addition income admitted account of ,39,47,221/-
1,97,05,945/-
39,41,19
,88,69,163/-
2,34,08,884/-
46,85,77
,41,48,530/-
3,12,40,213/-
60,20,54
,32,86,450/-
3,53,50,730/-
,35,55,260/-
3,27,32,815/-
65,46,56
,16,43,500/-
10,08,52,658/-
2,01,70,53
,26,97,990/-
13,39,48,744/-
2,67,89,74
---
24,95,02,394/-
4,99,00, bserved that for the AY 2018-19, the AO ha im of the assessee about the admissio s regard the AR contended that during the 78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
fficer, f the been s.148
mbly
0% of ed.
f the unted mbly g the 479/- mount e of f the bove duced fered the AO, it dmission of e course of ndisclosed
(Amount in Rs.) al e on f EB
Addition made as unaccounted cash receipts
91/-
1,57,64,756/-
73/-
1,87,27,107/-
41/-
2,52,19,672/-
0
3,53,50730/-
63/-
2,61,86,252/-
32/-
8,06,82,126/-
49/-
10,71,58,995/-
478
24,95,02,394/- as brought on of Rs.
e course of assessment procee worked and the ad consequent taxes w completed the re- considered by the A proceedings, submit
24.01.2019, the AO and the assessee fi issued u/s 148 of t search. Consequent
AO issued another could not file any re of the Act on acco admitted 20% of t additional income assessment proceed
6.5.34
Further demonstrated the consequent taxes, company has filed i date of search and option was availabl income, the appella
4,99,00,479/- durin revised computation assessment order.
6.5.35
In view decisions, when the 20% of the undiscl which stands to be presumptive section various judicial foru the considered vie admitted its undisc receipts collected fro appellant for the ass further addition is w of the appellant co appellant upon this hereby treated as addition(s) made in ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::26 ::

dings, the Computation of total income dditional income offered was incorporated were paid, whereas in the assessment pr working of additional income admitted
AO. Further, the AR during the course of tted that on the basis of the survey con
O issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 0
iled the return of income in response to the Act on 04.05.2022 which is before th to the search u/s 132 of the Act on 14.02
notice u/s 148 of the Act, however, the eturn in response to the second notice issue ount of technical glitches. Therefore, the the EB quantified during the course of in the revised computation during the dings before the AO.
r for the AY
2022-23, the appe declaration of additional income and pa the same merits consideration. The its return of income for the AY 2022-23
could not revise the return of income. As e to the assessee company to revise its ant has admitted additional income amou ng the course of assessment proceedings n, which has been brought on record by the w of the above findings, discussions an e appellant has admitted voluntarily an a osed cash receipts as additional business e over and above the percentage prescrib ns of the Act as well as the percentage con ums ( 8%, 12.5%, 15% etc ) the undersi ew that the appellant company has a closed income arising out of the unaccou om customers of various projects carried sessment years under consideration and th warranted to the facts and circumstances o mpany. Accordingly, all the grounds rais s issue for all the years under conside allowed and the AO is directed to d the respective assessment years as under:

78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
e was re- d and the roceedings was not f appellate ducted on 05.04.2022
the notice he date of .2023, the e assessee ed u/s 148
e assessee search as course of llant has ayment of assessee before the s no other s return of unting Rs.
s and filed e AO in the nd judicial amount of s income , bed in the sidered by gned is of adequately unted cash out by the erefore no of the case sed by the ration are delete the :

AY 2015-16
AY 2016-17
Rs.1,57,64,756/-
Rs.1,87,27,107/-
6.5.36
For the appellant has not a filed in response to t to certain technica appellant had no occ income filed, the ap has admitted additio
Rs. 70,70,146/- bein undersigned is cons addition made by t delete the balance
Similarly for the AY additional income i however the appella admitted additional unaccounted cash r the revised comput sustain
20%
of24
4,99,00,478/- and t
Rs. 19,96,01,916/- f
4.24 The Ld. CIT, DR a above estimation exerc that, the Constitutional profit element in the ra in the business of real e the Ld. CIT(A) that the in the return(s) of in reasonable. Hence, acco issue is warranted. Ove
ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::27 ::

AY 2017-18
AY 2019-20
AY 2020-
Rs.2,52,19,672/-
Rs.2,61,86,252/-
Rs.8,06,82,1
e AY 2018-19, the undersigned has observe admitted additional income in the return the notice u/s 148 of the Act for the AY 20
l glitches as brought out in para 6.5.3
casion to admit the additional income in the ppellant during the course of assessment pr onal income in its revised computation by ng 20% of unaccounted cash receipts, the strained to sustain (20% of Rs. 3,53,50,73
the AO) Rs. 70,70,146/- and the AO is d amount of Rs. 2,82,80,584/- for the AY
Y 2022-23, the appellant company has not n the return of income filed u/s 139 o ant, during the course of assessment procee income of Rs. 4,99,00,478/- being 20
eceipts from various projects for the AY 2
tation. Therefore, the undersigned is cons
4,95,02,394/- of the addition amou the AO is directed to delete the balance for the AY 2022-23.”
appearing before us was unable to cise conducted by the Ld. CIT(A).
Courts in their wi om have gene nge of 8% to 12.5% on the cash re estate. In light of the foregoing, we t assessee’s offer of 20% of the on-m ncome filed u/s 148 of the Act ording to us, no further addition on erall, therefore, we uphold the abov

78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
21
AY 2021-22
126/-
Rs.10,71,58,995/- ed that the of income
18-19 due
3. As the e return of roceedings y admitting refore, the 30/- of the directed to Y 2018-19. t admitted f the Act, edings has 0% of the 2022-23 in strained to nting
Rs.
amount of controvert the We also note erally estimated eceipts involved thus agree with monies receipts was fair and n the impugned ve order of Ld.

CIT(A). Hence, the grou this issue stands dismis
5
Issue 2: Additio sale of plots in Projec
Ground Nos. 6 for the assessee’s appeal for AY
Ground Nos. 6 for the assessee’s appeal for AY
5.1
These grounds re monies received upon s as noted are that, the which is a plotted deve course of search, the named "Project Payab
Karthika's Laptop as we from which it was gath towards “EB” viz., cas certain plots, aggregati
23. The AO is noted to by way of undisclosed i restricted the addition t
ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::28 ::

unds taken by both the assessee a sed.
on made on account of cash col ct Residencia e Revenue’s appeal and Ground
Y 2021-22
e Revenue’s appeal and Ground
Y 2022-23
elate to the addition made on accou sale of plots in the project “Residen assessee had undertaken “RESID lopment at Thaiyur consisting of 19
Investigating Officer found anoth les Final (EB).xlsx" found in "E- ell as in 'Kingston Data Traveller 1
hered that, the assessee had rece sh(as already held by us above)to ng Rs.1,02,48,505/- across AYs 20
have added the entire notings of c income of the assessee. On appeal to the profit element embedded in 78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
nd Revenue on llections from Nos. 3 of the Nos. 3 of the unt of cash on- ncia”. The facts
ENCIA" project
90 plots. In the er excel sheet
Drive" of Smt
16GB Pendrive’, eived payments owards sale of 021-22 & 2022- cash on-monies the Ld. CIT(A) the on-monies which was estimated at in appeal before us.
5.2
Heard both the adjudicating Issue No.1
impugned excel sheet collections upon sale of of adding the entire on- justified and that only t been brought to tax. A above, the judicial forum the range of 8%-12.5%
Respectfully following t action of estimating the at 12.5%. Hence, we
CIT(A) on this issue. A and cross objections of 6. Issue 3: Additio
Ground Nos. 6 for the assessee’s appeal for AY
Ground Nos. 6 for the assessee’s appeal for AY
ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::29 ::

t 12.5%. Now, both the assessee an parties. Following our findings r
1 above, we hold that the notings c under the heading “EB” indeed plots. Likewise, we also hold that,
-monies by way of income of the as he profit element embedded therein
As noted by us, while adjudicatin ms across India have generally esti
% in relation to on-monies involved the same, we thus countenance th e profits embedded in the impugne see no reason to interfere with th
Accordingly, these grounds raised b the assessee are dismissed.
n u/s.43CA
Revenue’s appeal and Ground Nos
Y 2021-22
Revenue’s appeal and Ground Nos
Y 2022-23

78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
nd Revenue are rendered while ontained in the denoted cash the AO’s action ssessee was not n ought to have ng Issue No. 1
imated profit in in real estate.
he Ld. CIT(A)’s d cash receipts he order of Ld.
by the Revenue s. 4 to 8 of the s. 4 to 8 of the 6.1
This ground rela consideration in relation of Section 43CA of the are that, the AO had ob the 190 plots at project of Rs.2500/- per sq.ft consideration of these 2
guideline value in term differential sum of Rs.
2022-23. On appeal, th allow the benefit of the the Act, which was in 30.06.2021 in terms of Act. The Ld. CIT(A) acc with the guideline rate second proviso to Secti value of 15 plots fell notional addition made actual sale value of the tolerance limit, the Ld.
addition in respect to th
ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::30 ::

tes to addition made by way of n to plots sold at the project “Resid
Act. Briefly stated the facts relatin bserved that, the assessee had sold t “Residencia” which was below the t. The AO accordingly tabulated t
23 plots and the deemed sales consi ms of Section 43CA of the Act a 51,36,281/- & Rs. 58,75,349/- in A he Ld. CIT(A) observed that the AO tolerance limit of 10% set out in S ncreased to 20% for the period f first and second proviso to Sectio cordingly analyzed and compared t es, after allowing the benefit set o on 43CA of the Act and found that within the tolerance limit and th u/s 43CA of the Act in relation the e remaining eight (8) [23-15] plots
CIT(A) accordingly re-computed a hese plots, by observing as under: -

78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
deemed sales encia” in terms ng to this issue
23 plots out of guideline value the actual sale ideration as per and added the AYs 2021-22 &
O had failed to Section 43CA of 12.11.2020 to on 43CA of the he actual rates out in first and the actual sale us deleted the ereto. Since the fell outside the and upheld the “The undersigned w and the sale value lesser than 10% of under.
Sl
No Customer
Name
Plot
No Are in S ft
1
Dr. A. Nisha
99
255
2
Mithun Sai
Sundar A 100
218
3
Vijaya a 129
138
4
Navuneetha
Krishnan
103
212
5
Anupriya
104
218
6
Logu
2
197
7
Logu
65
165
8
Gurunathan
23
120
In respect of those consideration in res line value (Rs. 2500
Short admission of b
Residencia as per th
2021-22 & 2022-2
consideration after p to section 43CA (1
worked out for the A 23 is at Rs. 31,06
58,75,349/- contem
Rs.51,36,281/- & 58
of Rs. 41,37,325/- &
is directed to de
Rs.27,69,249/- for t
6.2
Aggrieved by the and Revenue are in app
ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::31 ::

hile analyzing the registered value / guide in respect of the following cases, the sal f the guide line value. The cases identifi ea
Sq.
t
Status
Rate
Sale
Value
Sale
Value of Plots
Sold
G
50
SOLD
1800
4608000
4608000
82
SOLD
1800
3927600
3927600
82
SOLD
2113
2920166
2920166
22
SOLD
2200
1668400
1668400
80
SOLD
2200
4796000
4796000
73
SOLD
2225
4389925
4389925
51
SOLD
2225
3673475
3673475
08
SOLD
2248
2715584
2715584
cases, the AO should have re- compute pect of the cases which are below 10% of 0/- per sq ft) i.e. Rs. 2250/- per sq ft to ar business income arising out of sale of plots he provisions of section 43CA of the Act for 23. The undersigned has worked out providing 10% benefit as provided under t
) of the Act. Accordingly, the short ad
AY 2021-22 at Rs. 41,37,325/- and for the 6,100/- as against the addition of Rs.51,3
mplated by the AO. Therefore, out of the a 8,75,349/- for the AY(s) 2021-22 & 2022-
& Rs. 31,06,100/- are hereby sustained a elete the balance addition of Rs.9,98
the AY(s) 2021-22 & 2022-23 respectively.”
above order of the Ld. CIT(A), bot eal before us.

78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
line value le value is ied are as Guideline value
DOR
2500
11-06-
2020
2500
11-06-
2020
2500
26-04-
2021
2500
16-09-
2021
2500
08-11-
2021
2500
28-10-
2020
2500
28-10-
2020
2500
25-02-
2021
d the sale f the guide rive at the s in project r the AY(s) the sale he proviso mission is e AY 2022-
36,281/- &
addition of -23 a sum and the AO
8,956/- &
”
th the assessee

arties. We first take up the addition o the 15 out of the 23 plots which w us, the Ld. CIT, DR appearing for th e factual finding of the Ld. CIT(A) plots in question fell within the tole od 12.11.2020 to 30.06.2021) as s tion 43CA of the Act. We thus se r of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting addition
Rs. 27,69,249/- in the AYs 2021- he additions of Rs. 41,37,325/- & R
IT(A) in relation to the remaining ei
3. It is not in dispute that, the actua than the tolerance range of 10% se therefore the AO was legally entit emed sales consideration of the ass has however asserted that, the lo the matters to the DVO as mand cording to Ld. CIT, DR however, th before the AO and therefore the me. We however do not agree with th

78-2984/Chny/2024
Assessee & Revenue)
2016-17 to 2022-23)
Developers India Ltd.
made u/s 43CA were deleted by he Revenue was that, the actual erance range of et out in first &
e no reason to ns to the extent
-22 & 2022-23
Rs. 31,06,100/- ight (8) plots in al sales value of et out in Section tled to add the sessee. The Ld.
ower authorities ated in Section he assessee had Ld. CIT(A) had his action of the Revenue. It is noted th
Sunil Kumar Agarwal assessee has not req difference between the the AO is duty bound
Court has further held reference plea is not f
Officer has to make sta
The relevant findings o applicable to the instant
“8. For the aforesai by the departmenta is required to avoid that the capital gain to be made by the D
The legislature has fair treatment to t machinery provided benefit thereof shou is made by the lear not have been pr discharging a quasi and to give a fair tre provided by law.
9. For the aforesaid
10. The impugned o assessing officer a assessing officer. He officer in accordan assessment shall be ITA Nos.29
& Others (A (AY 2
M/s. Radiance Realty D
::33 ::

hat the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court vs. CIT (372 ITR 83) has held t uested for reference to DVO, bu actual sales value and the guidel to made reference to the DVO. Th d that, an assessee's failure in fatal in income tax proceedings as atutory reference to the DVO u/s 5
of the Hon’ble High Court which a t case before us, is as follows: - d reasons, we are of the opinion that the l valuation officer, contemplated under Se miscarriage of justice. The legislature did n should be fixed merely on the basis of the District Sub