M/S.RAVECHI INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (NOW KNOWN AS T BHIMJYANI REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ITO 28(2)(5), MUMBAI

Date of Hearing – 03.12.2019 Date of Order – 19.12.2019

O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M.

The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the order dated 9th July 2018, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–26, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2012–13.

2 M/s. Ravechi Infrastructure Projects (Now known as T. Bhimjyani Realty P. Ltd.)

3 M/s. Ravechi Infrastructure Projects (Now known as T. Bhimjyani Realty P. Ltd.) to the income of the assessee. Insofar as the expenditure claimed towards purchase of bungalows, the Assessing Officer observed that in response to the notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act to Vedant Realty Pvt. Ltd., it was found that the said company had purchased two bungalows from the assessee and subsequently, the purchase of bungalows were cancelled and the company received back an amount of ` 11.58 crore including compensation of ` 2 crore. Whereas, the Assessing Officer noticed, the assessee had claimed expenditure of ` 11,80,02,200, towards re–purchase value paid to Vedant Realty Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added back the differential amount of ` 22,02,200, to the income of the assessee by reducing the same from WIP. Though, the assessee challenged the aforesaid addition before the first appellate authority, however, learned Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

4 M/s. Ravechi Infrastructure Projects (Now known as T. Bhimjyani Realty P. Ltd.) that since the amount has already been taxed in the assessment year 2015–16, it should not be added in this assessment year. Similarly, in respect of the amount paid towards re–purchase value of bungalows from Vedant Realty Pvt. Ltd., the assessee had submitted that though it had not received the differential amount from the buyer on cancellation of deal, however, it has already considered the sale amount and offered as income in the assessment year 2010–11. Therefore, the amount of ` 22,02,200, should not be reduced from WIP. On a perusal of facts on record as well as the reasoning of learned Commissioner (Appeals), it becomes clear that the assessee itself admits that the club house expenditure is not chargeable to WIP. That being the case, the Assessing Officer, in our view, was justified in reducing it from the WIP and adding back to the income of the assessee. In case, the assessee has offered the very same amount as income in the assessment year 2015–16, it is for the assessee to demonstrate such fact through supporting evidence and claim relief as permissible in law in the assessment year 2015–16. As regard the reduction of differential amount of ` 22,02,200, from WIP, facts on record clearly reveal that the amount actually paid by the assessee to the buyer of the bungalow is less than what is charged to WIP. It is the contention of the assessee that the entire purchase value has been shown as sales in assessment year 2010–11. However, this claim has 5 M/s. Ravechi Infrastructure Projects (Now known as T. Bhimjyani Realty P. Ltd.) not been factually proved by the assessee through supporting evidence either before the Departmental Authorities or even before us. That being the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals). Grounds are dismissed.