ARLIE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9550/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 April 2023AY 2015-164 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the amount of Rs.2,40,965 received from DLF Commercial Project Corporation was duly accounted for and reduced from the cost of land. The CIT(A) overlooked this fact, making the addition unfounded.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in land sale, disclosed sales of Rs.1,39,36,000 out of total sales consideration of Rs.1,81,25,000. The Assessing Officer added the differential of Rs.41,89,000 as undisclosed sales. The CIT(A) sustained an addition of Rs.2,40,965.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs.2,40,965 to the assessee's income was justified when the amount was already accounted for and reduced from the cost of land.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & DR. BRR KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri RS Singhvi & Satyajeet, Adv. & Rajat Garg, CA
For Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.04.2023Pronounced: 25.04.2023

ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Captioned appeal by the assessee arises out of order dated 17.10.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2015-16.

2.

Dispute in the present appeal is confined to addition of Rs.2,40,965 to the income of the assessee. engaged in the business of sale of land. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 30.03.2016 declaring income of Rs.44,70,287.

4.

In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that in the year under consideration, the assessee had sold lands through registered sale deed dated 07.04.2014 and received total sales consideration of Rs.1,81,25,000. However, the assessee disclosed sales of Rs.1,39,36,000 treating the differential amount of Rs.41,89,000 as undisclosed sales consideration, the Assessing Officer added back to the income of the assessee. Assessee contested the aforesaid addition before learned Commissioner (Appeals).

5.

Further, in course of the proceedings before the first appellate authority, it was submitted that assessee had entered into a development agreement with DLF Commercial Project Corporation and out of the total sales consideration of Rs.1,81,25,000, an amount of Rs.41,89,000 was received by DLF Commercial Project Corporation as confirming party. of facts and on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) was convinced that out of the total sales consideration, DLF Commercial Project Corporation has received an amount of Rs.41,89,000.

However, he observed, DLF Commercial Project Corporation has paid back to assessee a sum of Rs.2,40,965 by way of a credit note.

Accordingly, he sustained the addition to the extent of Rs.2,40,965.

7.

We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record.

8.

It is observed from the material placed before us as well as the audited financial statement of the assessee, the amount of Rs.2,40,065 received from DLF Commercial Project Corporation was duly accounted for in the books of account of the assessee and reduced from cost of land. Though, this fact was brought to the notice of learned First Appellate Authority, however, as it appears, he has completely overlooked the facts brought on record. Therefore, the allegation of learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee has not disclosed sale consideration of Rs.2,40,965 is unfounded.

Accordingly, we delete the addition.

9.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25th April, 2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →