Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Joginder Singh,
आदेश / O R D E R
The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19/12/2014 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. The only ground raised in this appeal pertains to confirming the addition of Rs.21,91,500/- on account of difference in the sale price of flats.
During hearing of this appeal, none was present on behalf of the assessee, in spite of service of registered AD notice as is evident from the acknowledgment available on record. It seems that the assessee has nothing to say, therefore I have no option but to proceed ex-parte, qua the assessee, and tend to dispose of this appeal on the basis of material available on record. The ld. DR, Shri A.K. Dhondial, invited my attention to the finding contained in the impugned order by submitting that there is huge difference in the sale of flats by the assessee. My attention was drawn to page-2 onwards of the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The impugned order was defended.
2.1. I have considered the submissions of the ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The facts and brief, are that the assessee is a builder/developer, at the relevant time, was engaged in the development of real estate project at Sanpada. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the sale price of flats and found that the flats of the same size and area in the same building were sold at different rates. The explanation of the assessee was also found to be unconvincing. Broadly, the stand of the assessee was that it was due to Vastu Problems, the builder sold the property at lower rates. I have examined the assessment order as well as the impugned order and note that the flats of the same area i.e. flat no. 1207 was sold for Rs.25,69,000/- on 22/09/2009 and flat no. 1603 of the same area was sold for Rs.25,44,000/- on the same day, whereas, on the same floor, flat no.1604 of the same area was sold for Rs.36,64,750/- on 30/10/2009. The ready reckner price quoted is almost identical. The differential rate was not explained properly by the assessee, thus, I find no infirmity in the conclusion of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Finally, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
This order was pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. DR at the conclusion of the hearing on 06/01/2016.
Sd/- (Joginder Singh) �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 06/01/2016 f{x~{tÜ? P.S /�नजी स�चव आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai. 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT(A)- , Mumbai 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy//