ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. UNIMAX BUILDESTATE PVT LTD, JAIPUR
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR
MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 103/JPR/2024
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15
ACIT,
Central Circle-2,
A-47, Rathi Nagar, Nr. Rani Sati Nagar,
Gopalpura Bye Pass, Ajmer Road,
Jaipur.
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCU3476A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
C.O. No. 2/JPR/2024
(Arising out of TA. No. 103/JPR/2024) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15
Unimax Buildestate Pvt. Ltd.,
A-47, Rathi Nagar, Nr. Rani Sati Nagar,
Central Circle-2,
Jaipur.
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCU3476A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Deepak Sharma, Adv.
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 19/02/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 08/05/2025
vkns'k@ORDER
2
ITA No.103/JPR/2024 & CO No. 2/JPR/2024
Unimax Buildestate Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.
PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.
The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A)-4,
Jaipur dated 30.11.2023 passed under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15, whereas the assessee has filed the Cross Objection against the appeal filed by the revenue. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
“1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has erred inignoring the fact that the case was selected under CASS parameter for the reason Sales Consideration for property in ITR is less than consideration reported to verify the transaction of immovable property made by the assessee; and in allowing the appeal of the assessee on wrong presumption that the AO has exceeded the scope of inquiry allowed under Limited Scrutiny disregarding the fact that it is same single transaction involving the consideration reported under CASS parameter where the assessee is a purchaser.
On the facts and Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,58,00,000/- in not appreciating the inseparable concinnity of purchaser and seller in the transaction reported under CASS parameter and in ignoring the fact that the AO has restricted the enquiry only to the issue of limited scrutiny thereby bringing the undisclosed transaction under tax umbrella within the true spirit of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,73,324/- ignoring the fact that the amount of Rs. 14,73,324/- for the registration charges of land was paid from the unexplained source of expenses.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any of the ground of appeal during the course of appellant proceeding.”
The grounds raised in the Cross Objection are as under :-
3
ITA No.103/JPR/2024 & CO No. 2/JPR/2024
Unimax Buildestate Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.
“1.The ld. AO erred in not accepting the order of CIT (A) and contesting for the addition made beyond the reason of selection of case of Limited scrutiny of the sale of property without following the procedure laid down as per law.
Without prejudice to the above, the ld. AO erred in not accepting the order of CIT (A) and disregarding the undisputed fact that the ld. AO has initiated enquiry on the issue of sale of property and therefore during assessment proceedings specifically asked to submit computation of capital gain from the assessee, only for the reason, the issue of limited scrutiny was very specific as “Sale consideration of property in ITR is less than consideration reported” and made additions beyond the reason of limited scrutiny without following the procedure laid down as per law.
Without prejudice to the above, the ld. AO erred in contesting the case ignoring the relevant documents communicated by it during appellate proceedings in regard to limited issue of selection of case of sale of property.
The Respondent craves to amend or alter any ground or add new ground at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee the assessee is dealing in Real Estate. The appellant filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 30.09.2014 declaring loss of (-) Rs. 34,49,903/-. The case of the assessee was selected for LIMITED Scrutiny under CASS and the case had been taken up for Limited Scrutiny for examining the following issue :- Sale consideration of property in ITR is less than consideration reported (CIB 401)
Notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 01.09.2015, fixing date of hearing on 14.09.2015, which was duly served upon the assessee through registered post. The Authorized Representative of the assessee attended. Notice under section 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 calling for certain details
4
ITA No.103/JPR/2024 & CO No. 2/JPR/2024
Unimax Buildestate Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.
was issued on 06.04.2016; again on 03.05.2016 and once again on 06.06.2016. The ld. A/R submitted copy of ITR along with computation and audit report. Written submissions along with supporting papers, books of accounts comprising of cash book, Bank book, ledger and journal with supporting vouchers were produced which were test checked.
2.1
During the year under consideration, the assessee had purchased a chunk of land and got it registered. The land had been purchased for a consideration of Rs.
2,58,00,000/- as per the sale deed. Out of this amount, Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid in cash and the balance through cheques. As this transaction of purchase was not getting reflected in the books of the assessee, the assessee was asked to clarify the position. The assessee submitted its explanation that “ During the year the assessee purchased a property for Rs. 2,58,00,000/- on 07.06.2013, copy of the purchase deed enclosed herewith but registry was retained by the