M/s Esar Builders, Panaji V. Dy.Comm. Of Income Tax, Cent . Circle, Panaji

ITA 31/PAN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2091 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 10-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 28

Judgement Text

1 ITA NOS. 31, 32 & 61/PAN/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.31 & 32/PNJ/2014 (ASST. YEAR S : 2008 - 09 & 2009 - 10) M/S. ESAR BUILDERS, DEMPO TRADE CENTRE, TERRA FIRMA, UNIT NO. 201A/201B, 2 ND FLOOR, PATTO, PANAJI (GOA) VS. D CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI - GOA PAN NO. AAAFE 4559 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 6 1/PNJ/2014 (ASST. YEAR : 2008 - 09 ) D CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI - GOA VS. M/S. ESAR BUILDERS, DEMPO TRADE CENTRE, TERRA FIRMA, UNIT NO. 201A/201B, 2 ND FLOOR, PATTO, PANAJI (GOA) . PAN NO. AAAFE 4559 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P. VAIDYA ADVOCATE WITH SHRI SAMIR C. ANVEKAR C A DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI R.N. SIDDAPPAJI DR DATE OF HEARING : 10 / 0 5 /201 6 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 / 0 5 /201 6 . O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 31 & 61 /PAN/2014 ITA NO. 31/PAN/2014 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ITA NO.61/PAN/2014 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF 2 ITA NOS. 31, 32 & 61/PAN/2014 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - VI, BANGALORE IN APPEAL NO S . 171/172/DCIT,CC,PANAJI/GOA/CIT(A) - VI/B LORE /2011 - 12 DATED 20/11/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 AND ITA NO. 32/PAN/2014 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - VI, BANGALORE IN APPEAL NO. 171/172/DCIT, CC,PANAJI/GOA/CIT(A) - VI/BLORE/2011 - 12 , DATED 20/11/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 . 2. SHRI P. VAIDYA, ADVOCATE WITH SHRI SAMIR C. ANVEKAR, CA REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI R.N. SIDDAPPAJI, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE . 3 . IN RESPECT OF GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 8 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL , IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH ON THE PREMISES OF ONE SHRI SADIQ SHEIKH , WHO WAS THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM . AS A CONSEQUEN CE OF THE SEARCH , PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTI ON 153C WAS INIT I ATED ON THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING AN INCOME OF 2,00,99,111/ - AND THE ASSESSMENT CAME TO BE COMPLETED ON AN INCOME OF 3,13,89,100/ - . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THERE WERE TWO ADDITIONS REPRESENTING AN AMOUNT OF 75,90,000/ - BEING AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LIABILITIES AND THE SECOND ADDITION OF 3 7 LAC REPRESENTING ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH M/S. MODEL S REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PROPERTY KNOWN AS CARANZALEM AT PANAJI . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS PER THE SAID AGREEMENT , WHICH WAS SHOW N AT PAGE NOS. 28 TO 35, THE SECOND PARTY NAMELY M/S. MODELS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS WAS TO PAY 1,56,00,000/ - FOR PARTLY BUILT UP STRUCTURES AND AN AMOUNT OF 90 LAC FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THE OTHER LIABILITIES CREATED ON THE SAID PROPERTY. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE SAID AMOUNT OF 90 LAC, BUT RECEIVED ONLY 1,56,00,000/ - AND THE PROFIT IN 3 ITA NOS. 31, 32 & 61/PAN/2014 RESPECT OF THE SAID TRANSACTION OF 1,56,00,000/ - WAS AN AMOUNT OF 1,05,37,943/ - WHICH HAD BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION AND ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF 90 LAC HAD BEEN REQUESTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. MODELS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS TO PROVIDE THE BUILT UP AREA , AS MENTIONED IN SCHEDULE II TO THE AGREEMENT , TO THE SPECIFICALLY ME N TIONED PERSONS THEREIN AGAINST THE LIABILITIES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TREATED THE AMOUNT OF 90 LAC AS RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS THE LIABILITIES WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AS SPECIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT, BUT ONLY AN AMOUNT OF 14,10,000/ - HAD BEEN RECORDED , T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REDUCED TO 14,10,000/ - FROM 90 LAC AND HAD BROUGHT TO TAX 75,90,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED LIABILITIES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED THIS AMOUNT OF 90 LAC , AND THE SAID TRANSACTION IS CLEARLY RECORDED IN THE AGREEMENT , AND AS THE AGREEMENT WAS WHAT HAS BEEN RELIED UPON FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE A DDITION, THE SAID ADDITION WAS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD , WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE , CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 4 . IN RESPECT OF GROUND NOS . 9 & 10 , IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE WAS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF 37 LAC TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD TELESCOPED THIS ADDITION AGAINST THE ADDITION OF 75,90,000/ - , WHICH HAS BEEN CHALLENGED IN THE EARLIER GROUNDS . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AGAINST THE CONFIRM A TION OF THE ADDITION OF 37 LAC, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AND AGAINST THE TELESCOPING OF THE ADDITION WITH THE AMOUNT OF 75,90,000/ - , THE RE VENUE IS IN APPEAL . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A PROPERTY AD MEASURING 26816 SQ.MTS. IN SURVEY NO. 212/1 AT TALEIGAO . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF THE SAID PROPERTY WITH ONE BRASS PERRIERA . IT WAS THE 4 ITA NOS. 31, 32 & 61/PAN/2014 SUBMISSION THAT THE SAID AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO ON 31/05/1994 . AS THERE WAS A DISPUTE IN REGARD TO THE SAID PROPERTY, THE REGISTRATION OF THE SAID PROPERTY COULD BE DONE ONLY IN AUGUST, 2007. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT MR. BRASS PERRIERA HAD EXPIRED ON 30/03/1998 AND HIS WIFE, WHO WAS CO - SIGNATORY OF THE AGREEMENT , DIED ON 11/01/1996 . A S A CONSEQUENT TO THE DEATH OF TH E SAID TWO AGREEMENT HOLDERS, THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE SAID OWNERS GOT TITLE IN THE SAID PROPERTY. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN 1994 , AS PER AGREEMENT WITH BRASS PERRIERA AND HIS WIFE, THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF 22 LAC. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF THE SAID PROPERTY IN 2007, THE LEGAL HEIRS DEMANDED AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF 15 LAC AND THUS, THE TOTAL COST OF THE SAID PROPERTY WAS 37 LAC . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY PAID AN AMOUNT OF 10 LAC TO SHRI BRASS PERRIERA AND , THIS WAS , ACKNOWLEDGE D BY THE VARIO U S LEGAL HEIRS . THE PAYMENT OF 27 LAC TO THE VARIOUS LEGAL HEIRS WERE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED BY THEM IN A CONSOLIDATED RECEIPT , AS ALSO VIDE INDIVIDUAL RECEIPTS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, BOTH THE CONSOLIDATED RECEIPT AND THE INDIVIDUAL RECEIPTS WERE FOUND. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE CONSOLIDATE D RECEIPTS BEING 02 IN NUMBER WERE FOR A CONSIDE R ATION OF 37 LAC AND THE INDIVIDUAL RECEIPTS WAS FOR A CONSIDERATION OF 27 LAC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE RECEIPTS WERE NOT INDEPENDENT AND THE CONSOLIDATED CONSIDERATION WAS , AN ADDITIONAL 37 LAC OVER AND ABOVE 37 LAC WHICH HAD BEEN AGREED TO AND PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADDED THE AMOUNT OF 37 LAC AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE CONSOLIDATED RECEIPTS DID NOT TALK OF ANY CASH OR CHEQUE PAYMENTS, HOWEVER, THE INDIVIDUAL RECEIPTS CLEARLY TALKED OF THE CHEQUE PAYMENTS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE CONSOLIDATED RECEIPTS WERE TAKEN, SO THAT THE LEGAL HEIRS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO RAISE ANY FURTHER CLAIMS AGAINST THE ASSESSE E INSOFAR AS IN THE TERRITORY OF GOA , AND IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTION WHERE THE PORTUGUESE LAW DID APPLY , I T WAS ALWAYS OPEN TO THE LEGAL HEIRS TO 5 ITA NOS. 31, 32 & 61/PAN/2014 RAISE SOME COMPLICATIONS OR THE OTHER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IT WAS ONLY A PRECAUTION THAT INDIVIDUAL RECEIPTS AND THE CONSOLIDATED RECEIPTS WERE TAKEN. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ADDITION OF 37 LAC MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD ALSO NOT CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AND HAD TELESCOPED THE ADDITION AGAINST THE ADDITION OF 75,90,000/ - IN RESPECT OF THE LIABILITIES. 5. IN REPLY, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF LIABILITIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SADIQ SHEIKH , AND HE HAD ADMITTED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED 90 LAC TOWARDS CLEARING OF THE LIABILITIES AND THE SAME WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , WHEREIN THE SAID STATEMENT HAS BEEN RECORDED AS QUESTION NO.34. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE PAR TNER OF THE ASSESSEE HAD HIMSELF AGREED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF 90 LAC, THE ADDITION HAS RIGHTLY BEEN MADE. HE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IT WAS PUT TO THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT AS TO WHY , WHEN IN THE STATEMENT ITSELF, SHRI SADIQ SHEIKH H AS MENTIONED THAT THE LIABILITIES INCURRED TOWARDS BUILT UP AREA WAS TO BE CONSIDERED AND THE SAID DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE IN THE AGREEMENT , WHICH WAS ALSO A SEIZED MATERIAL, THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN CON SIDERED, THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT MAKE ANY SUBMISSIONS. 6 . IN RESPECT OF SECOND ADDITION REPRESENTING THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT AGAIN THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN RECORDED WHICH HAS BEEN EXTRACTED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER AS QUESTION NO. 49 & 50 AND THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN QUESTIONED REGARDING PAYMENT OF 37 LAC. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ADDITION WAS LIABLE TO BE CONFIRM ED. IT WAS PUT 6 ITA NOS. 31, 32 & 61/PAN/2014 TO THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED IN THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT WAS ONLY OF 37 LAC AND THERE IS NO CASH PAYMENTS MADE AND EVEN THE SALE DEED TALKS OF 37 LAC , THEN WHAT WAS THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE FOR AN ADDITION OF 37 LAC ADDITIONAL, TO WHICH THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT GIVE ANY SUBMISSION. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY FROM THE BENCH AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED ANY OF THE LEGAL HEIRS TO VERIFY WHETHER THEY HAVE RECEIVED ANY CONSIDERATION IN CASH OVER AND ABOVE AMOUNTS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED OR WHETHER ANY ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THEIR HANDS, THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT NO FURTHER EXAMINATION HAS BEEN DONE IN RESPECT OF THE LEGAL HEIRS. 7 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AT THE OUTSET , IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF 75,90,000/ - , A PERUSAL OF THE AGREEMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND AT PANAJI SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ONLY 1,56,00,000/ - . THE LIABILITIES OF 90 LAC IS RECOGNIZED IN THE AGREEMENT AND THE LIABILITY OF 90 LAC HAS ALSO BEEN SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THE AGREEMENT, TO BE SET OF AGAINST THE SPECIFIC BUILT UP AREA AS MENTIONED IN SCHEDULE II TO THE AGREEMENT. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS RECOGNIZED THIS PORTION OF THE AGREEMENT , THOUGH IT IS THE SEIZED MATERIAL . E FFECTIVELY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF 90 LAC. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ADDITION O N THIS COUNT CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITION OF 75,90,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) STANDS DELETED. 8 . I N RESPECT OF ADDITION OF 37 LAC REPRESENTING UN - EXPLAIN ED INVES T MENT , IT IS NOTICED THAT THE SALE DEED ALSO TALKS OF 37 LAC. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT TWO SETS OF RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN FOUND , ONE SET BEING CONSOLIDATED RECEIPT AND ONE SET OF 7 ITA NOS. 31, 32 & 61/PAN/2014 INDIVIDUAL RE CEIPTS, THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE . NO FURTHER EXAMINATION HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE HAS BEEN NO ATTEMPT TO EVEN EXAMINE THE LEGAL HEIRS AS TO WHETHER ANY CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE THE SAID AMOUNT OF 37 LAC HAS BEEN PAID TO THEM. IN FACT, IN THE STATEMENTS RECORDED FROM SADIQ SHEIKH, HE HAS EXPLAINED THE TRANSACTIONS, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ONLY TAK E N PART OF THE STATEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE ADDITION AND THAT PART OF THE STATEMENT , WHICH IS FAVOURABLE TO THE ASSESSEE , HAS BEEN NEGLECTED IN ITS ENTIRETY ALONG WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THIS AMOUNT OF 37 LAC IS CALLED FOR IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN T HE RESULT, ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAS CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) STANDS DELETED. 10 . AS WE HAVE DELETED THIS ADDITION OF 37 LAC REPRESENTING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS, THE REVENUES APPEAL CHALLENGING THE TELESCOPING OF THE SAID AMOUNT , ALSO DOES NOT SURVIVE AND CONSEQUENTLY STANDS DISMISSED. 11 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 31/PAN/ 2014 STANDS ALLOWED AND REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 61/PAN/2014 STANDS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 32/PAN/2014 12 IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HANDED OVER 06 FLATS BY M/S. T.R. RESIDENCY VIDE LETTER OF POSSESSION DATED 01/04/2008 . T HE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DECLARED THE RECEIPT OF SALE 06 FLATS. SHRI SADIQ SHEIKH HAD ADMITTED TO THE RECEIPT 8 ITA NOS. 31, 32 & 61/PAN/2014 OF 06 FLATS EQUIVALENT TO 666 SQ. MTS. A ND HAD DISCLOSED VALUATION OF THE SAME AT 66,66,000/ - IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADOPTED AT THE RATE 10,000/ - PER SQ.MTR. FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALUING THE FLAT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT OUT OF THE SAID 06 FLATS , THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD 02 FLATS IN THE YEAR 2008 - 09 , AND ONE FLAT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009 - 10 AND THE BALANCE OF 03 FLATS WAS STILL LYING AS S TOCK. THE ASSESSEE HAD ADOPTED AT THE RATE 10,000/ - PER SQ.MTR. FOR THE PURPOSES OF VALU ING THE SAID STOCK AS THE SAME WAS THE COST OF THE ASSESSEE . T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT ONE OF THE FLATS HAD BEEN SOLD DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009 - 10 I.E. 13/10/2008 FOR 15,000/ - PER SQ.MT R . , H E HAD VALUED THE 06 FLATS BY APPLYING 15,000/ - PER SQ. MT R . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE RATE OF 10,000/ - APPLIED WAS CORRECT , AS FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALUING THE CLOSING STOCK , IT IS THE COST OR MARKET PRICE WHICHEVER IS LOWER THAT IS TO BE APPLIED AND THE COST WAS 10,000/ - AND THE MARKET PRICE, ADMITTEDLY OF 15,000/ - . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE PROFITS ON THE SALE OF THE FLATS HAVE ALSO BEEN OFFERED TO TAX. 13 . I N REPLY , DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE RATE OF 15,000/ - WAS TO BE TAKEN INSOFAR AS , AS PER THE EVIDENCE REPRESENTING THE SALE DEED , WHICH HAS BEEN SEIZED , THE SALE CONSIDERATION CLEARLY SHOWED THE RATE OF 15,000/ - PER SQ.MTR. HE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 14 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WHEN OFFERING THE CLOSING STOCK WHAT HAS TO BE APPLIED IS COST OR MARKET PRICE , WHICHEVER IS LOWER. A DMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED THE RATE OF 15,000/ - WHICH IS MARKET PRICE OF THE SAID FLAT . THE ASSESSEE HAS CLE A R L Y SHOWN WHY HE HAS ADOPTED THE RATE OF 10,000/ - AS COST. THIS BEING SO, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CLOSING STOCK IS TO BE VALUE D AT 10,000/ - AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOT 15,000/ - BEING THE MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS FURTHER NOTICED 9 ITA NOS. 31, 32 & 61/PAN/2014 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ITS COST AND SELLING PRICE AS PROFIT S, IN ITS RETURNS FOR THE VARIOUS YEARS BY TINKERING WITH THE COST. THE ASSESSEE S PROFIT S WHICH HAVE BEEN OFFERED DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WILL ONLY GET REDUCED INSOFAR AS WHEN THE COST IS PUSHED UP , THE PROFITS WILL REDUCE , THIS ONLY RESULTS IN SHIFTING OF THE PROFITS FROM ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR TO ANOTHER . HOWEVER , IT HAS ALSO ANOTHER ANGLE INSOFAR AS THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE IN A SUBSTANTIAL DISADVANTAGE INSOFAR AS THE PROFITS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE SALE OF TH ESE FLATS DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS , HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AND THAT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN REDUCED ON ACCOUNT OF INCREASING OF THE COST FOR THE PURPOSE OF OFFERING THE CLOSING STOCK FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 . THIS BEING SO, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE VALUATION OF 666 SQ.MTS. OF THE FLAT MUST BE AT THE RATE 10,000/ - PER SQ.MTR. AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 15 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 31 & 32 /PAN/2014 STA ND ALLOWED AND REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 61/PAN/2014 STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON TUESDAY , THE 1 0 TH DAY OF MAY , 201 6 AT GOA . S D / - S D / - (N.S.SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 1 0 TH MAY , 201 6 . VR/ - 10 ITA NOS. 31, 32 & 61/PAN/2014 COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. 2 . THE REVENUE. 3 . THE CIT 4 . THE CIT(A) 5 . THE D.R . 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PANAJI