JAIPUR BUILDFARMS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR
Before: Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI & SHRI GAGAN GOYALJaipur BuildFarms Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 3, Kardhani Yojana, BehindGovindam, Tower Kalwar Road, Jhotwara,Jaipur-302012 PAN No.:AABCJ6237A
PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A), Jaipur -4
dated 15.10.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
The Learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in not considering the request of the Appellant to keep the appellate proceedings in abeyance and deciding the appeal without granting adequate opportunity to present relevant evidence, submission and clarifications in support of Grounds of Appeal in the gross breach of natural justice.
1 The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating a critical fact that sale deed of commercial shop no 2, Viva Heights, Kardhani Road, Jaipur was also fraudulently executed in F.Y. 2014-15 by an unauthorized person at the direction of former Director of the Company. This deed was subsequently annulled by a Competent Civil Court. Furthermore, the appellant company has filed a civil suit to invalidate the sale deed executed in F.Y 2015-16 for same commercial shop no 2, which forms the basis of the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Appellant contends that the Ld CIT(A) would have served the justice by waiting for the outcome of civil suit filed by the Company and keeping the appellate proceedings in abeyance.
That the notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under section 148 of the Act is illegal, bad in law and without juri iction. Hence, the order passed under section 147/143(3) dated 03.03.2022 is illegal, bad in law and without juri iction and deserves to be quashed.
The Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,62,04,377.00 made by the Ld Assessing Officer on the basis of a purported sale deed fraudulently executed by an unauthorized person on behest of former Director of the Company. The Ld. CIT (A) further erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant company neither received the sale consideration stated in the sale deed nor parted with the possession of the property subject matter of the sale deed and thus there was no transfer of property as per the Provisions of Transfer of Property Act resulting into any taxable profit in the hands of appellant company. Hence the addition of Rs 3,62,04,377.00 deserves to be deleted.
That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon the ground of this appeal at the time or before the actual hearing of the case.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 14.02.2017 u/s. 139(4) of the Act declaring income at Rs. NIL. In the case of the assessee company information was received from the office of DIT(I&CI), Jaipur through an in-sight portal that the assessee sold an immovable property for consideration of Rs. 5.6 Cr for the year under consideration. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued dated: 31.03.2021. It was further observed by the 3
AO that no balance sheet and profit & loss account was filed by the assessee along with its return of income, hence calculations pertain to the above-said sale transaction have not been truly reflected in its return of income. After a detailed deliberation on the issue between the AO and the assessee, the case was assessed at Rs. 3,39,17,740/- (After giving set off B/f losses of Rs. 15,66,470/- and current year loss at Rs. 13,22,774/-). The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee and order of the AO was confirmed. The assessee, being further aggrieved with this, preferred the present appeal before us.
We have gone through the order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submissions of the assessee along with grounds taken before us. It is observed that the assessee has not filed any return of income for the year under consideration in compliance with the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act and after A.Y. 2017-18 there was no return ever filed by the assessee u/s. 139 of the Act. Based on the order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submissions of the assessee, the following facts essential to adjudicate the issue emerged (Chronologically) as under: A). The appellant company was engaged in development of real estate project “VIVA HEIGHTS” at plot no. 2, Kardhani, Kalwar Road, Jaipur and the project was under development during the relevant A.Y. B). During the year under consideration there were 4 directors in the company, i.e. Mr. Vijay Kumar Maheshwari, Mr. Shanker Lal Khandelwal, Mr. Guman Khandelwal and Mr. Siddharth Moondhra. Mr. Shanker Lal Khandelwal and Guman Khandelwal were removed from Directorship of the company w.e.f. 02.01.2017. 4
C).
A sale deed was executed by some Dilip Kumawat authorised by Shankar Lal Khandelwal in favour of M/s. Shrisai Kripa Inframart, LLP for a sum of Rs. 5.8 Cr. Vide sale deed dated:
20.02.2015. Against this the prevailing directors of the assessee company filed a suit with the District& Sessions Court for cancellation of the sale deed mentioned (supra) and the same was cancelled by the Addl. Civil Judge, Mahanagar Jaipur-II vide his order dated: 27.02.2020 (Copy of the order is placed on page no. 108-120 of the PB).
D).
Another transaction again done by the same Dilip Kumawat on the behest and authority of Shankar Lal Khandelwal in favour of Smt. Renu Khandelwal, w/o. Shri Tikam Khandelwal
(Brother of Shankar Lal Khandelwal) for a consideration of Rs. 5.6 Cr vide Board Resolution dated: 05.11.2015 and the same was registered with the sub-