THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. CREDO REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD(NOW AS M/S. CSBPROJECT PVT. LTD), AHMEDABAD

1 The Assessee in its Cross Objection has raised the following grounds :-

1 The learned A.O. has erred in law and on facts in not accepting the view taken by the leamed CIT(A). The learned A.O. has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the learned. CIT(A) has after considering the facts, documents submitted during the course of appellate proceedings and relying on various case laws has rightly observed that considering price appreciation of the property in subject for which compensation has been paid by the appellant and as the appellant has actually paid the compensation for non-delivery of the possession to Kunal S Shah HUF based on the Agreement to Sale (Without Possession) as per evidence on record which were submitted during the appellate proceedings appellant has rightly claimed the same allowable business expenses as Kunal & Shah HUF has sold the very property to third party and also offered short term capital gain of Rs.1,53,00,000/ which itself proves that transactions was done with genuine intention. Hence the leamed CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition on account of Compensation amount paid to Kunal & Shah HUF Rs.1,53,59,000/-. In view of the above, the appellant humbly submits that the contention of the leamed AO is bad in law and hence the same should be deleted.

1 The learned A.O. has erred in law and on facts in not accepting the view taken by the learned CIT(A). The learned A.O. has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the learned CIT(A) has after considering the facts, documents submitted during the course of appellate proceedings and relying on various case laws has observed that appellant company is a subscriber to Credo Mineral Industries Ltd. CMIL and Gujarat Credo Minerals Industries Ltd. – GCMIL. GCMIL is a Joint Venture of CMIL and Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. - GMDC, which is a Government of Gujarat Undertaking. The Director of the appellant company is Managing Director of Gujarat Credo Minerals Industries Ltd. and transaction was done in the interest of the group company and hence question of in-genuineness does not arise. The learned A.O. has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the learned CIT(A) has after relying on the copy of all survey reports submitted as a part of remand proceedings, observed that agreement was cancelled due to non-viability of bauxite as per survey conducted by Geo Info Mining Consultancy and hence appellant company has decided not to make balance payment and to forego the payment already made to Gautamchand S Chaudhary HUF which was forfeited by him. Hence the learned CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made on accounts of the Forfeiture of Advance paid to Gautamchand S Chaudhary - Rs.2,50,00,000/-. In view of the above, the appellant humbly submits that the contention of the learned A.O. is bad in law and hence the same should be deleted.

1 The learned A.O. has erred in law and on facts in not accepting the view taken by the learned CIT(A). The learned A.O. has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the learned CIT(A) has after considering the facts, documents submitted during the course of appellate proceedings and relying on various case laws has observed that appellant was successful in acquisition of different survey numbers located at Mankol village of Sanand Taluka through Mr. Rameshbhai Patel and appellant is dealing with him since 2010 and having good amount of trust. Appellant has also entered in to Banakhat for purchase of land at survey no.98, 99 & 83, out of which land at survey no.98 & 99 were successfully acquired by the appellant company and land at survey no.83 could not be acquired because of it had no seamless access due to failure of acquiring land at survey No.82P. This proves that the appellant has cancelled the agreement for purchase of land at survey no.83 due to non-availability of land at survey no.82/P and hence appellant company has claimed forfeiture of the agreed amount of ITA No.512/Ahd/2020 & C.O. No.3/Ahd/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rs.66,30,000/- to Rameshbhai Patel as allowable expenses. The learned CIT(A) has further observed that the parties involved are genuine and existing. The records of government offices cannot be manufactured. The acquisition of various lots of land as detailed by the appellant, is important piece of evidence. Hence the learned CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made on account of the Forfeiture of Advance paid to Ramesh M Patel - Rs.66,30,000/-. In view of the above, the appellant humbly submits that the contention of the leamed A.O. is bad in law and hence the same should be deleted.

During the year under consideration, the assessee company has carried out business of Real Estate. Return of income was filed on 30.10.2015 declaring income of Rs.6,09,940/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 14.04.2016. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act read with Section 129 of the Act dated 18.08.2017 was issued and served upon the assessee. 3.1 Subsequently, show cause notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 27.12.2017 was issued and all these notices were responded by the AR of the assessee. The assessee submitted copy of statement of total income, return of income, Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss Account on 06.11.2017. The Assessing Officer noticed that during the year under consideration, the assessee has shown revenue from operation of Rs.10,05,51,001/- and has shown purchase of stock in trade amounting to Rs.10.27,498/-. The assessee has sold two properties (1) for Rs.8,00,00,001/- on 30.01.2015 and (2) for Rs.2,10,51,000/- on 21.10.2014. 3.2 To verify the genuineness of the transactions made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 133(6) of the Act to the respective Sub-