SHREE GANESH DEVELOPERS, NAVI MUMBAI V. DCIT CC 25, MUMBAI

ITA 1556/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4456 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K DHONDIAL J

Judgement Text

, - , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES SMC, MUMBAI , ! ' , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, ITA NO.1556/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S SHREE GANESH DEVELOPERS, THE AMBIENCE COURT, UNIT NO. PLOT NO.2, SECTOR 19D, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI-400703 / VS. DY.CI TRIBUNAL, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 / ASSESSEE / REVENUE P.A. NO. ABDFS48 62J $ % & / ASSESSEE BY NONE $ % & / REVENUE BY SHRI A.K.DHONDIAL JCIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING 06/01/2016 & / DATE OF ORDER: 06/01/2016 & / O R D E R THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DA TED 19/12/2014 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MU MBAI. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL PERTAINS TO C ONFIRMING ITA NO.1556/MUM/2015 M/S SHREE GANESH DEVELOPERS 2 THE ADDITION OF RS.21,91,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFER ENCE IN THE SALE PRICE OF FLATS. 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, IN SPITE OF SERVICE OF REGI STERED AD NOTICE AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT AVAILA BLE ON RECORD. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO S AY, 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 TH E IMPUGNED ORDER BY SUBMITTING THAT THERE IS HUGE DIFFERENCE I N THE SALE OF FLATS BY THE ASSESSEE. MY ATTENTION WAS DRAWN T O PAGE-2 ONWARDS OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME 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 F ACTS AND BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A BUILDER/DEVELOPER , AT THE RELEVANT TIME, WAS ENGAGED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF RE AL 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 SAM E BUILDING WERE SOLD AT DIFFERENT RATES. THE EXPLANATION OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS ALSO FOUND TO BE UNCONVINCING. BROADLY, THE ST AND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT WAS DUE TO VASTU PROBLEMS, THE BUILDER SOLD THE PROPERTY AT LOWER RATES. I HAVE EXAMINED T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND NOTE ITA NO.1556/MUM/2015 M/S SHREE GANESH DEVELOPERS 3 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 T HE SAME AREA WAS SOLD FOR RS.25,44,000/- ON THE SAME DAY, W HEREAS, ON THE SAME FLOOR, FLAT NO.1604 OF THE SAME AREA WA S SOLD FOR RS.36,64,750/- ON 30/10/2009. THE READY RECKNER PR ICE QUOTED IS ALMOST IDENTICAL. THE DIFFERENTIAL RATE W AS 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 I S DISMISSED. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN T HE PRESENCE OF LD. DR AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 06/01/2016. SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) ! ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 06/01/2016 F{X~{T? P.S / ! & $ )!*+ ,&+-* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '#$%& / THE APPELLANT 2. '(%& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ) * ( '#$ ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. ) ) * / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. -./ ' , ) '#$ ' 1 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. /2 3$ / GUARD FILE. & / BY ORDER, (-# ' //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI