DCIT CIRCLE 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SUKHAM PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद ायपीठ “सी“, अहमदाबाद ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
सुी सुिचा काले, ाियक सद एवं
ी मकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद के सम"।
]
]
BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.607/Ahd/2024
िनधारण वष /Assessment Year : 2020-21
DCIT
Circle-4(1)(1)
Ahmedabad
बनाम/
v/s.
Sukham Properties Pvt.Ltd.
101, Devarc Mall
Ahmedabad City
Jodhpur Char Rasta SO Ahmedabad – 380 015
थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AAQCS 3397 D
अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant)
&' यथ%/ (Respondent)
Assessee by :
Shri Pritesh L. Shah, AR
Revenue by :
Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24 /03/2025
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 26 /03/2025
आदेश/O R D E R
PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM:
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated
05.02.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”]
for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020–21, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred to as “AO”]
under sections 69A and 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”].
Asst. Year : 2020-21
Facts of the Case:
2. The assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of land and property transactions. It filed its return of income for A.Y. 2020–21
on 08.12.2020, declaring a total income of Rs.53,10,650/- under the normal provisions and Rs.1,02,08,725/- under section 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the issues of High Creditors /
Liabilities, and Unsecured Loans.
During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee had credited a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to its Profit and Loss account under the head “Other Income,” with the narration indicating that the amount represented an advance received against a property that had been forfeited. On further inquiry, it was revealed that no agreement for sale or cancellation was available for verification. The note appended to the financial statements explicitly recorded that the amount was subject to confirmation from the concerned party. The AO, in order to verify the genuineness of this transaction, called upon the assessee to furnish the agreement to sell, the cancellation agreement, confirmation from the party, and supporting documentary evidence. The assessee admitted that the relevant file had been misplaced and was therefore unable to produce any supporting evidence, including the identity or PAN of the counterparty. In the absence of any documentary evidence to substantiate the claim, the AO held that the nature and source of the said sum remained unexplained. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.1 crore was treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and brought to tax under the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act.
1. In respect of unsecured loans aggregating to Rs.6.54 crores, the AO particularly examined loans amounting to Rs.4.07 crores, claimed to have DCIT vs. Sukham Properties Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Year : 2020-21
been received from three entities—Origin Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.2.02 crore),
Fringe Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Rs.2.03 crore), and Opus Restaurants Pvt. Ltd.
(Rs.2 lakh). The AO called for confirmations and documentary support from the assessee. On verification, it was found that Origin Lifecare Pvt. Ltd. was a company that had been struck off by the