The Dy. CIT, Central Circle-4, Surat V. M/s. Shree Hari Corporation, Surat

ITA 1553/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8185 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P M JAGASHETH
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Corroborative evidences; Set aside
• Section: 264; 13; 22; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIRTUAL HEARING) .../ I.T.A NO.1553/AHD/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT. VS. M/S SHREE HARI CORPORATION, SITE OFFICE OF VASHNODEVI LIFE STYLE TP NO.14, FP NO.107, B/H. RAJHANS CINEMA, PAL, ADAJAN, SURAT 395009. [PAN: ABQFS 4229 J] / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY SHRI P.M.JAGASHETH CA /REVENUE BY SHRI RITESH MISHRA CIT(DR) / DATE OF HEARING: 17.03.2021 / P RONOUNCEMENT ON: 17.03.2021 /O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, SURAT HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS LD.CIT(A) DATED 09.03.2017 FOR THE A.Y.2014-15. THE REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,20,95,322/- ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF NET TAXABLE PROFIT EARNED ON THE TOTAL ON MONEY. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. DCIT, CC-4, SURAT VS. M/S.SHREE HARI CORPORATION / ITA NO.1553/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y.2014-15 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS GATHERED FROM THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS (A.Y.) 2014-15 ON 30.11.2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.27,49,030/-. DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THE ASSESSEE WAS DEVELOPING THREE PROJECTS, NAMELY (I) VAISHNODEVI SKY; (II) VAISHNODEVI HEIGHT AND (III) VAISHNODEVI FARM VILLE. A SEARCH ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON ASSESSEES GROUP ON 28.11.2013. DURING THE SEARCH, CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS SHOWING UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF FIRM RELATING TO THE CURRENT YEAR WERE FOUND AND IMPOUNDED. STATEMENT OF PARTNER OF FIRM WAS RECORDED. ON CONFRONTING THE IMPOUNDED MATERIAL, THE PARTNER OF THE FIRM DISCLOSED UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.56,42,157/- OVER AND ABOVE THE REGULAR INCOME. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER ALSO RECORDED STATEMENT OF SHRI ANAND GAUR AND SHRI SUDHIRBHAI PARIKH WHO VISITED THE OFFICE PREMISES OF ASSESSEE DURING SEARCH/ SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. IN THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANAND GAUR STATED THAT HE BOOKED FLAT NO.B204 ADMEASURING IN 1094 SQ.FT IN PROJECT VAISHNODEVI HEIGHTS ON 17.10.2013. SHRI ANAND GAUR MADE BOOKING @ 2200 PER SQ.FT FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.24,00,200/-. HE PAID RS.25,000/- BY CHEQUE AND DCIT, CC-4, SURAT VS. M/S.SHREE HARI CORPORATION / ITA NO.1553/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y.2014-15 3 RS.5,000/- IN CASH. SIMILARLY, SHRI SUDHIRBHAI PARIKH SATED THAT HE BOOKED FLAT NO.D-1104 OF 3- BED ROOM HALL KITCHEN (BHK) FLAT @1790 PER SQ.FT AND IN VAISHNODEVI HEIGHTS IN 2011 FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.25,65,650/-. HE FURTHER STATED THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 24.70LAKHS WAS PAID AS SALE CONSIDERATION, WHICH INCLUDES RS.5.50 LAKHS PAID IN CASH AT THE TIME OF BOOKING AND AMOUNT OF RS.98,650/- IS STILL PENDING FOR PAYMENT. THE AO FURTHER RECORDED THAT IN THE STATEMENT OF PARTNER RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT. ON CONFRONTING THE DIFFERENCE IN RATES, AND ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS MADE IN CASH, THE PARTNER EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCE IN SALE PRICE WAS DUE TO DIFFERENCE OF ONE YEAR TIME PERIOD. THE BOOKING WERE STARTED IN 2011 AND 45% OF FLATS WERE BOOKED @ RS.1400/- PER SQ FT AND DUE TO RISE OF RATE THE FLAT NO. D-204 IN THE NAME OF ANAND GAUR WAS BOOKED @ RS. 2200/ PER SQ FT. AND FLAT OWNER OF D-1104 PAID AMOUNT FOR EXTRA WORK CHARGES. THE PARTNER STATEMENT THAT PROJECT HAS 288 FLATS AND 30 SHOPS. THEY BOOKED 18 SHOPS AT 2000 PER SQ.FT. AT GROUND FLOOR AND 1800 PER SQ. FT. AT UPPER GROUND FLOOR. THE AO ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENTS OF PARTNER AND BUYERS OF TWO FLATS OWNERS AND BY COMPARING THE BOOKING OF OTHER PROJECTS IN THE SAME AREA AS WELL AS ON THE BASIS OF JANTRI RATE WORKED OUT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.20.18 CRORE AS ON MONEY WITH REGARD TO 288 FLATS AND RS. 2.02 CRORE WITH REGARD DCIT, CC-4, SURAT VS. M/S.SHREE HARI CORPORATION / ITA NO.1553/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y.2014-15 4 TO 30 SHOPS ( TOTAL RS. 22.83 CRORE) IN VAISHNODEVI HEIGHTS PROJECT. THE AO FURTHER PRESUMED THAT ALL THE PROJECTS ARE SITUATED IN THE SAME LOCALITY. THE BOKING OF SHOPS IN THE PROJECT VAISHNODEVI HEIGHTS IS DONE SUBSEQUENT TO 2010. THE AO FURTHER PRESUMED THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT SHOPS WERE BOOKED AT A LOWER RATE AS DISCLOSED BY ASSESSEE. THE JANTRI RATES IN THE AREA ARE SHOWING INCREASING TREND. ON THE BASIS OF AFORESAID ESTIMATION AND PRESUMPTION, THE AO APPLIED PROFIT RATE AT 25% ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED NET PROFIT OF RS.5,70,95,322/- [25% OF 22.83 CRORE]. THE AO ON HIS OBSERVATION THAT DURING THE SEARCH THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.50 LAKHS, THEREFORE AFTER GIVING THE SET-OFF [LESS OF 50 LAKHS], THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.5,20,95,322/- [5,20,95,322 - 50 LAKHS]. 3. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE MADE DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION. THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE IS DULY RECORDED IN PARA 5.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. BESIDES THE OTHER SUBMISSION, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT A SEARCH ACTION WAS CARRIED OUT IN CASE OF ASSESSEE ON 28.11.2013. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.56,42,157/- AS ADDITIONAL INCOME. THE AO WORKED OUT THE FIGURE OF ON MONEY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF TWO PERSONS/BUYERS, RECORDED DURING THE SEARCH/ SURVEY. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT IF THE DCIT, CC-4, SURAT VS. M/S.SHREE HARI CORPORATION / ITA NO.1553/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y.2014-15 5 STATEMENT OF THOSE TWO PERSONS ARE INVESTIGATED IN DEEP, ACTUAL REALITY, BOTH THE PERSONS STATED ABOUT THE RATE OF FLAT BOOKING, PAYMENT TERMS, MONEY PAID FROM TIME TO TIME AND NOWHERE IN THE STATEMENT THEY STATED ABOUT ANY ON MONEY PAYMENT. THE PARTNER OF THE FIRM IN HIS STATEMENT, RECORDED DURING THE SEARCH ALSO STATED THAT THE RATE OF BOOKING OF SHOP AT RS.2000 TO 1800 AND THAT SOME BOOKINGS ARE AT THE HIGH FIGURES DUE TO EXTRA WORK. NO SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE SEARCH TO PROVE THAT ASSESSEE RECEIVED ANY ON MONEY OVER AND ABOVE DOCUMENTED AND ACCOUNTED FIGURES OF SALES. DURING ASSESSMENT, IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCE RATE IS DUE TO EXTRA WORK, WHICH WAS DONE BY THE CONTRACTOR AND THERE WAS A SPECIFIC WORK CONTRACT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE COPY OF AGREEMENT ALONG WITH BANK LOAN SANCTIONED AGAINST THE SALE DEED AS WELL AS FOR EXTRA WORK AGREEMENT. THE AO REJECTED THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE MERELY ON ASSUMPTION THAT EXTRA WORK DOCUMENT WAS EXECUTED ONLY TO GET THE HIGHER LOANS FROM BANK AND IT WAS AFTER THOUGHT AND THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS MADE A CONCOCTED STORY FOR EXTRA WORK. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE AO ESTIMATED ON MONEY ONLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF TWO BUYERS, THE STATEMENT OF BOTH THE BUYERS WERE SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. DCIT, CC-4, SURAT VS. M/S.SHREE HARI CORPORATION / ITA NO.1553/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y.2014-15 6 IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THERE IS NO ON MONEY RECEIPT FROM ALL THE SALE INSTANCES. THE ON MONEY WAS PURELY BASED ON ASSUMPTION AND ESTIMATION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON CERTAIN CASE LAWS. 4. THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE AND THE RECORD OF ASSESSMENT AND THE STATEMENT OF BUYERS AND THE PARTNER HELD THAT NO DOCUMENT PROOF ON MONEY RECEIPT WAS RECOVERED FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE FIRM OF PARTNER DURING THE SEARCH/SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. THE BASIC EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE AO RELIED AND MADE ESTIMATED FIGURE OF ON MONEY ARE THE STATEMENT OF TWO BUYERS NAMELY SHRI ANAND GAUR AND SUDHIRBHAI PARIKH RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE LD.CIT(A) THAT IN THE STATEMENT, THE BUYER STATED ABOUT THE RATE OF FLAT BOOKING, PAYMENTS TERM AND MONEY PAID FROM TIME TO TIME, THEY NEVER ASKED AND NOWHERE IN THE STATEMENT THEY STATED ABOUT THE ON MONEY PAYMENT. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT FROM THE STATEMENT OF PURCHASER, IT CANNOT BE PROVED THAT THEY WERE HAVING ANY AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE REGARDING ANY PAYMENT BEING MADE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE LD.CIT(A) ALSO EXAMINED THE STATEMENT OF PARTNER WITH REGARD TO FLAT NO.B-204 AND WITH REGARD TO THE PAYMENT OF RS.8,64,000/-. ABOUT FLAT NO.D1104, FOR WHICH HE STATED THAT THIS FLAT WAS BOOKED @ 1790 PER SQ. FT WHEREAS DOCUMENT PRICE DCIT, CC-4, SURAT VS. M/S.SHREE HARI CORPORATION / ITA NO.1553/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y.2014-15 7 IS 1400 PER SQ.FT, WHICH ALSO DOES NOT CATEGORICALLY PROVED ON MONEY RECEIPT. THE LD.CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT PAYMENTS BY TWO FLATS BUYERS INCLUDING PAYMENT FOR EXTRA WORK FOR WHICH EXTRA WORK AGREEMENT AND PROOF OF DISBURSAL OF LAND BY BANK ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT WAS DISCUSSED, HAS NOT BEEN PROVED WRONG BY THE AO. AS PER STATEMENT OF PARTNER RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT THAT IN SOME FLATS, EXTRA WORK IS CARRIED OUT ACCORDING TO THE FLAT HOLDERS CHOICE AND THEREFORE BOOKING AMOUNTS RATES WERE DIFFER. THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION TO ASSUME ON MONEY PAYMENTS ON SHOPS AND IN RESPECT OF PROJECT, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DECLARED RS.50 LAKHS EARNED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON THE PROJECT, VAISHNODEVI HEIGHTS AND DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION, THUS, AGGRIEVED BY THE DELETION OF ALLEGED ON MONEY THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (CIT-DR) FOR THE REVENUE AND LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES CAREFULLY. THE LD. CIT-DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. THE LD. CIT-DR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT A SEARCH ACTION WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE ASSESSEE GROUP ON 28.11.2013. DURING THE SEARCH, CERTAIN DCIT, CC-4, SURAT VS. M/S.SHREE HARI CORPORATION / ITA NO.1553/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y.2014-15 8 INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND. THE STATEMENT OF PARTNER OF ASSESSEE AS WELL AS TWO BUYERS WHO MADE BOOKING IN THE PROJECT OF ASSESSEE IN VAISHNODEVI HEIGHTS WAS RECORDED BY AUTHORISED OFFICER. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER RECORDED THAT THERE WAS VARIATION IN THE BOOKING PRICE. MOREOVER, BOTH THE BUYERS STATED THAT THEY HAVE MADE CERTAIN PAYMENTS IN CASH. THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF PARTNER AS WELL AS THE BUYERS AND ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED ON MONEY FOR BOOKING OF SHOPS. THE AO ON THE BASIS OF SALEABLE AREA OF FLATS AND SHOPS ESTIMATED COST OF RS.22.83 CRORE AND THAT THE AO FAIRLY AND REASONABLY AFTER GAINING SET-OFF OF INCOME DISCLOSED DURING THE SEARCH ACTION MADE ADDITION OF 25% OF ON MONEY. THE LD.CIT(A) DISREGARDED THE FINDING OF AO DESPITE THE FACT THAT AO REASONABLY WORKED OUT THE FIGURE OF ON MONEY. ON THE BASIS OF AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS THE LD.CIT-DR SUBMITS THAT HE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF AO AND PRAYED FOR REVERSING THE FINDING OF LD.CIT(A) AND TO RESTORE THE ORDER OF AO. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE AO MADE ADDITION PURELY ON THE BASIS ESTIMATION, ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION. NO EVIDENCE REGARDING ALLEGED ON MONEY IN RESPECT OF PROJECT VAISHNODEVI HEIGHTS WAS RECOVERED DURING THE SEARCH AND SURVEY ACTION. THE STATEMENT OF PARTNER OF ASSESSEE DCIT, CC-4, SURAT VS. M/S.SHREE HARI CORPORATION / ITA NO.1553/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y.2014-15 9 WAS RECORDED WHO DISCLOSED AND OFFERED ADDITIONAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR TAXATION. THE AO ON HIS ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION WORKED OUT THE FIGURE ON ON MONEY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF TWO BUYERS NAMELY SHRI ANAND GAUR AND SUDHIRBHAI PARIKH. THE STATEMENT OF BOTH BUYERS NOWHERE DISCLOSED ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF ON MONEY. THE ADDITIONAL MONEY WAS PAID BY THEM ON ACCOUNT OF EXTRA WORK. THE EXTRA WORK WAS CARRIED OUT THROUGH INDEPENDENT PERSON, COPIES OF AGREEMENT ABOUT THE DISBURSEMENT OF LOAN AGAINST RENOVATION /EXTRA WORK AS WELL AS FOR EXECUTION OF EXTRA WORK WAS FURNISHED TO THE AO. THE AO DISREGARDED ALL THOSE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION ON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SUDHIRBHAI PARIKH AND ANAND GAUR, COPIES OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.305 TO 308 OF PAPER BOOK (PB)ALONG WITH TRANSLATION AND STATEMENT OF SHRI ANAND GAUR IS AT PAGE NO. 319 TO 321 OF PB. THE LD.AR AFTER READING THE STATEMENT OF BOTH THE BUYERS STATED THAT BOTH THE PERSONS NOWHERE STATED THAT THEY MADE ANY PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ON MONEY. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION ON THE ADDITIONAL WORK AGREEMENT OF BOTH THE BUYERS, COPY OF WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO.314 TO 318, 327 TO 332 OF PB RESPECTIVELY. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION ON THE HOUSING LOAN SANCTIONED LETTER DATED 09.10213 DCIT, CC-4, SURAT VS. M/S.SHREE HARI CORPORATION / ITA NO.1553/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y.2014-15 10 FROM HDFC BANK, ISSUED TO ANAND GAUR, COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO.333 TO 335 OF PB. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FINALLY; WHILE SUMMING UP HIS SUBMISSION REITERATED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCES AT ALL AGAINST FOR RECEIPT OF ON MONEY, THE AO MADE ADDITIONAL PURELY ON ESTIMATION BASIS. TO SUPPORT HIS SUBMISSION, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: CIT VS S. KHADER KHAN SON [2012] 25 TAXMAN.COM 413 (SC), CIT VS SHARDABEN K. MODI [2013] 35 TAXMAN.COM 264 (GUJARAT), CIT-III VS GOLDEN FINANCE [2013] 40 TAXMAN.COM 329 (GUJARAT), CIT VS. HAPPY HOME CORPORATION [2019]103 TAXMANN.COM 22 (SC), CIT VS. HAPPY HOME CORPORATION [2018] 94 TAXMANN.COM 292 (GUJARAT) (GUJARAT). ACIT VS HAPPY HOME CORPORATION ITA NO. 2270/AHD/2014 (ITAT, SURAT). D.R.CONSTRUCTION VS. ITO (ITA NO. 2735/AHD/2010), KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHIVS CIT [2008] 174 TAXMAN 466 (GUJARAT), SAVALIYA BUILDCON V/S. THE DCIT, (ITA NOS.401/AHD/2014 & 3188/AHD/2015 ACIT V/S. M/S AMAR CORPORATION (ITA NO.2036/AHD/2007 , NEPTUNE REALTY P. LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.2918/AHD/2011 YADAV DEVELOPERS P LTD. VS DCIT, (ITA NO.3674/AHD/2005, KIRAN J. TRIVEDI VS. DCIT, IT(SS)A NO.63 TO 65 & 100 TO 102/AHD/2014 FORT PROJECTS (P). LTD. VS. DCIT IN (IT(SS)A NOS. 11 TO 13/KOL/2011) MANI SQUARE LTD. V/S. ACIT, IN IT(SS)A NO.58/KOL/2019. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES CAREFULLY. WE HAVE ALSO DELIBERATED ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS BY LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COURSE OF HIS SUBMISSION. THE AO MADE ADDITION BY ASSUMING DCIT, CC-4, SURAT VS. M/S.SHREE HARI CORPORATION / ITA NO.1553/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y.2014-15 11 THAT DURING THE SURVEY, THE PARTNER OF THE FIRM STATED THAT THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF 288 FLATS AND 30 SHOPS AND BOKED 18 SHOPS AT 2000 PER SQ FT UPPER GROUND FLOOR IN VAISHNODEVI HEIGHTS. THE PARTNER EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCE IN THE SALE PRICE WAS DUE TO EXTRA WORK. THE AO ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF TWO FLATS BUYERS COMPARING TO BOOKING OF THE PROJECT CALCULATED ON MONEY OF RS.20.81 CRORE IN RESPECT OF 288 FLATS ON HIS FOLLOWING OBSERVATION: SHRI MANISH KATARGAMWALA HAS FURTHER STATED THAT THIS PROJECT HAS 288 FLATS CONSISTING OF SALEABLE AREA OF 338114 SQ. FT. AND 30SHOPS ADMEASURING SALEABLE AREA OF 14480 SQ. FTS.IT WAS ALSO STATED BY HIM THAT 18 SHOPS HAVE BEEN BOOKED SO FAR BY THE CUSTOMERS @ RS. 2,000/- PER SQ. FT. AT GROUND FLOOR AND RS.1,800/- PER SQ. FT. AT UPPER GROUND FLOOR. HOWEVER, HE FINALLY STATED THAT DIFFERENCE IN DOCUMENT PRICE AND BOOKING AMOUNT IS ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN EXTRA WORK IN FLATS AND HE SHALL SUBMIT DETAILS THEREOF WITHIN 2 3 DAYS. HOWEVER NO SUCH DETAILS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE MENTIONED DETAILS AND STATEMENTS OF CUSTOMERS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS MANISH KATARGAMWALA, ONE OF THE PARTNER OF THE FIRM THE TOTAL ON MONEY INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT WITH RESPECT TO THE FLATS IS WORKED AS UNDER: TOTAL SALEABLE AREA (338114 SQ. FEETS) PERCENTAGE OF BOKING RATE TOTAL AMOUNT 152151 45%(AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT) 1790 27,23,50,290/- 185963 55% 2200 40,91,18,600 TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION 68,14,68,890/- LESS: DOCUMENT PRICE (338114 X 1400) 47,33,59,600/- TOTAL ON MONEY INVOLVED 20,81,09,290/- 8. FURTHER WITH REGARDS TO THIRTY SHOPS THE A.O. MADE FOLLOWING ESTIMATIONS; DCIT, CC-4, SURAT VS. M/S.SHREE HARI CORPORATION / ITA NO.1553/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y.2014-15 12 SALEABLE AREA RATE PER SQ FT (RS.) TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION RATE SHOWN IN DOCUMENTS AS PER DOCUMENTS CONSIDERATION ON MONEY 14480 3400 4,92,32,000 2000 28960000 20272000 9. THUS, ON THE BASIS OF THE WORKING SHOWN IN THE AFORESAID TABLE THE A.O. WORKED OUT THE TOTAL ON MONEY ON THE PROJECT OF RS. 22,83,81,290/- (20,81,09,290 + 2,02,72,000). 10. THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE, WORKING OF AO AND THE STATEMENT OF PARTIES HELD THAT THERE IS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE, THE RECEIPT OF ON MONEY. NO DOCUMENTS WERE RECOVERED FROM THE POSITION OF FIRM DURING THE SEARCH OR SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. THE AO ESTIMATED THE FIGURES OF ON MONEY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENTS OF TWO BUYERS NAMELY SHRI ANAND GAUR AND SUDHIRBHAI PARIKH, RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY. WE HAVE FURTHER NOTED THAT LD.CIT(A) INDEPENDENTLY EXAMINED THE STATEMENT OF BOTH THESE TWO FLAT BUYERS, THE LD.CIT(A) ON EXAMINATION OF THEIR STATEMENT HELD THAT BOTH THE PARTIES STATED ABOUT THE RATE OF FLAT BOOKING, PAYMENT TERMS, MONEY PAID FROM TIME TO TIME BOTH THE BUYERS NOWHERE ASKED IN THE STATEMENT THAT THEY HAVE MADE ON MONEY PAYMENT. THE STATEMENT OF PURCHASER CANNOT ALONE PROVE THAT THEY WERE HAVING ANY AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE REGARDING ANY PAYMENT MADE OUTSIDE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE THAT BOTH THE BUYERS PAID EXTRA MONEY FOR EXTRA WORK AGREEMENT IS ALSO PROVED BY PROOF OF DISBURSAL OF BANK DCIT, CC-4, SURAT VS. M/S.SHREE HARI CORPORATION / ITA NO.1553/AHD/2017 FOR A.Y.2014-15 13 LOANS AS WELL AS BY EXTRA WORK AGREEMENTS. THE LD.CIT(A) FURTHER NOTED THAT IF THE EXTRA WORK DOUBTED BY SEARCH OR SURVEY PARTY, NO FURTHER INVESTIGATION WAS MADE AGAINST THOSE FLATS OWNERS. THE ADOPTION OF HUGE ON MONEY WITHOUT IOTA OF EVIDENCE IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION. 11. BEFORE US, NO CONTRARY FACTS, EVIDENCE OR CASE LAW IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO TAKE THE OTHER VIEW, THEREFORE, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A). 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 17 .03.2021 BY PLACING RESULT ON NOTICE BOARD. SD/- SD/- (DR.ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ( /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( /JUDICIAL MEMBER) / SURAT, DATED : 17 TH MARCH , 2021 /# SGR COPY OF ORDER SENT TO- ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A) ITAT (DR)/GUARD FILE OF ITAT. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SURAT