ARVIK PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CEN CIR 30, MUMBAI

ITA 5935/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4007 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR PROMOD NIKALJE
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 133A; 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5935/MUM/2011 : (A.Y : 200 7 - 08 ) ARVIK PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., 203, MAKER TOWERS A, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI 400 005. PAN : AABCA4506H (APPELLANT) VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 30, MUMBAI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA RESPONDENT BY : DR. PROMOD NIKALJE DATE OF HEARING : 28/01/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 /02/2016 O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA , A M : THIS APPEAL IS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS CIT(A) ) PASSED A GAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) DT. 3.5.2011 FOR THE A.Y 2 007 - 08 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1 . THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS ON RECORDS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O AMOUNTING TO RS.40,00,000/ - BY WRONGLY INTERPRETING THE FACTS AND EVEN THOUGH ON CROSS EXAMINATION, THE BUYER OF THE PROPERTY CATEGORICALLY DENIED HAVING PAID ANY SUCH AMOUNT TO THE APPELLANT. 2. THE ABOVE ADDITION IS UNJUSTIFIABLE FOR ANOTHER REASON THAT THE STAMP AUTHORITY HAD ALSO CONFIRMED THE MARKET VALUE AT RS. 17.64 LACS I.E. THE AMOUNT AT WHICH THE CONCERNED PROPERTY WAS SOLD TO THE BUYER. 2 ARVIK PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 5935/MUM/2011 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, ARGUMENTS WERE MADE BY SHRI VIJAY MEHTA ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND DR. PROMOD NIKALJE ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE BEFORE US ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER AND ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS. RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5, 76,607/ - WAS FILED ON 31.10.07 SHOWING INCOME FROM SALE OF FLATS IN BUILDING SILVER ARCH B CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSE E COMPANY. A SEAR CH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132(1) OF THE I.T. ACT WAS TAKEN IN THE CASE OF SHRI DILIP KAPOOR AND HIS WIFE SMT. SUMAN KAPOOR ON 6.11.06. IN CONNECTION WITH THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE, THE COMPANIES OF SHRI DILIP KAPOOR GROUP WERE SURVEYED U/S. 133A OF THE I.T A CT. IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATIONS, DOCUMENTS, LOOSE PAPERS AND DIARIES WERE IMPOUNDED INVENTORI S ED AS ANNEXURE A - 1 AND A - 2 FROM 5, DIVYANG S.B. SINGH MARG, MUMBAI AND AS ANNEXURE A - 1 TO A - 7 FROM OFFICE AT 1102, SILVER ARCH B, NEW MILAT NAGAR, ANDHER I (W), MUMBAI. ON VERIFICATION OF THE DOCUMENTS AND LOOSE PAPERS IT WAS FOUND THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS PERTAINED TO THE AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT BY THE A.O ON 30.12.08 DETERMINING THE TOTAL I NCOME OF RS.45,77,600/ - AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF RS.40 LAKHS ON THE BASIS OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED ENTRIES AT A - 2 PAGE 48 OF THE DIARY. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSED CONTESTED THIS ISSUE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IN THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSED MADE SUBMISSIONS DT. 27.1.200 9 WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : - 1. THE LEARNED DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (DCIT) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS ON RECORD IN MAKING THE ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME ON IMAGINARY BASIS AN AMOUNT OF RS. 40,00,000/ - , WHICH IS MEREL Y A 'NOTING IN 3 ARVIK PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 5935/MUM/2011 THE ACCOUNTANT'S PERSONAL DIARY, IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTION . 2. THE SAID ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON IMAGINARY BASIS/ CONJECTURES AND SURMISES IS FURTHER SUPPORTED BY THE FACT THAT THE LD DCIT HAS NOT INVOKED ANY ACTION I. E. NEITHER INVOKED SEC. 68 NOR SEC. 69 NOR SEC. 69A NOR SEC.69B NOR SEC. 69C AND THEREFORE WRONGLY ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE TOTAL INCOME. 3. THE LD. DCIT HAS WRONGLY CORRELATED THE SAID NOTING WITH THE SALE TRANSACTION OF SALE OR FLAT NO.1003 AND WR ONGLY CONCLUDED THAT IT REPRESENTS CASH COMPONENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL, WHATSOEVER ON RECORD DESPITE THE FACT THAT FLAT NO. 1003 WAS SOLD AT THE PRICE STATED THEREIN. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE SAID NOTING HA S BEEN PROPERLY EXPLAINED AS NARRATED ON PAGE 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HAVING NIL IMPACT ON THE INCOME. 4. DURING THE C OURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. THE AO FURNISHE D REMAND REPORT DT. 22.3.2011. THE RE LEVANT PORTION OF T HE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : - KINDLY REFER TO THE ABOVE. 2.0 IN THIS CONNECTION, THE UNDERSIGNED WAS DIRECTED TO CARRY OUT THE FOLLOWING: A. TO FURNISH A COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED, IF ANY, OF SHRI MUKESH PRAJAPATI AND SHRI HUM AYUN RANGILA REGARDING THE ENTRY OF RS.40 LACS. B. IF NO STATEMENT WAS RECORDED, TO EXAMINE SHRI PRAJAPATI AND SHRI RANGILA ON OATH AND FURNISH A REPORT ON THE ALLEGED PAYMENT OF RS. 40 LAKHS. 3.0 IN PURSUANCE TO REMAND PROCEEDINGS, SHRI PRAJAPATI AND SHRI HUMAYUN WERE ENQUIRED ON OATH, COPY OF STATEMENTS ENCLOSED. 4 ARVIK PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 5935/MUM/2011 (A) SHRI HUMAYUN RANGILA DENIED ANY CASH PAYMENT OF RS. 40 LACS TO THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED HIS IGNORANCE TO THE ENTRY WRITTEN BY SHRI PRAJAPATI IN PAGE NO.48, A - 2. (B) SHRI MUKESH PRAJAPATI, ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT HE DID NOT REMEMBER ANYTHING ABOUT THE ENTRY. HE WAS ALSO MADE AWARE OF THE INFERENCE DRAWN FROM THE ENTRY BUT HE REITERATED HIS IGNORANCE ABOUT THE ENTRY, THOUGH HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DIARY WAS MAINTAINED BY H IM. 4.0 IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE DIARY WAS MAINTAINED BY SHRI MUKESH PRAJAPATI. HOWEVER, HE SUBMITTED ON OATH THAT HE DOES NOT REMEMBER ANYTHING ABOUT THE ENTRY. THE WORDS MENTIONED IN THE ENTRY ARE SALES, CASH, 1003, RANGILA, 40 LACS', WHICH UNDISPUTEDLY PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 40 LACS WAS CASH SALES TO MR. HUMAYUN RANGILA IN PURSUANCE OF SALE OF FLAT NO. 1003. THE SUBMISSION OF MUKESH PRAJAPATI AND SHRI HUMAYUN RANGILA ARE UNTENABLE IN VIEW OF THE SPEAKING EVIDENCE. IN VIEW OF THE AB OVE, IT IS STATED THAT THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM IS DEVOID OF MERIT AND MUST BE REJECTED. 5.0 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WERE JUSTIFIED. THUS, I AGREE TO THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6.0 IN V IEW OF PARA 4.0 AND 5.0, IT IS STATED THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE CORRECT AND BASED ON FACTS.' IN RESPONSE TO THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSED FURNISHED A DETAILED REJOINDER REFUTING ALL THE ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THE REMAND REPORT A ND REITERATED THAT NO CASH HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT HE WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS BROUGHT OUT IT WAS CONCLUDED BY HIM THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AM OUNT IN CASH OF RS. 40 5 ARVIK PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 5935/MUM/2011 LAKHS ON SALE OF THE IMPUGNED FLAT AND THUS HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING, TH E LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE MADE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE COPY OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE DETAILED ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD. COU NSEL CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER : - I) T HE SEIZED DOCUMENT IS ONLY A DUMB DOCUMENT. NOTHING CAN BE CONCLUDED FROM THE PERUSAL OF THIS DOCUMENT. FURTHER CORROBORATION WAS REQUIRED BEFORE ANY ADDITION COULD BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THIS DOCUMENT. NO SUCH INFORMATION OR CORROBORATION COULD BE GATHERED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITI ES AND, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE DUMB DOCUMENT LIKE THIS. II) T HE SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED ON 23.9.2005 I.E. IN THE PRECEDING FINANCIAL YEAR, WHEREAS THE AO HAS ALLEGED THAT AS PER THE SEIZED DOCUMENT CASH WAS PAID ON 15.5.2006 I.E. IN THE IMPUGNED FINANCIAL YEAR. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT IT IS I NCONCEIVABLE AND UNIMAGINABLE THAT THE SALE DEED OF THE PROPERTY HAD ALREADY BEEN ENTERED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR WHEREAS THE CASH WAS PAID THIS YEAR. THUS, THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO WAS INCORRECT AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS. III) L D. COUNSEL SUBMITTED A CHART SHOWING THE STAMP VALUE RATES OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES IN DIFFERENT YEARS AND IT WAS ARGUED THAT THERE HAS BEEN A HUGE SLUMP IN THE MARKET AND PROPERTIES WERE SOLD EVEN BELOW THE STAMP VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES AS ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION 6 ARVIK PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 5935/MUM/2011 AUTHORITIES AND THUS ON THE BASIS OF HIGH STAMP VALUE ALONE IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS RECEIPT OF CASH IN THE TRANSACTION. IV) L D. COUNSEL HAS MADE A STATEMENT AT THE BAR T HAT NO ACTION WAS TAKEN AND NO ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PURCHASER VIZ. MR. HUMAYUN RANGILA. THE LD. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE STATEMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL IN THIS REGARD. V) L D. COUNSEL MADE AN ALTERNATE SUBMISSION THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE T O THE EAR LIER SUBMISSIONS, IN CASE IT IS HELD THAT CASH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN, NO ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THIS YEAR FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DISCLOSED THE ENTIRE SALES VALUE OF THE PROJECT IN WHICH THIS FLAT WAS LO CATED IN THE PRECEDING FINANCIAL YEAR I.E. F.Y 2005 - 06 AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD, EVEN IF ALLEGATION WAS MADE THAT CASH WAS RECEIVED, THE SAME COULD BE ADDED , AS PER LAW, ONLY IN A.Y 2006 - 07 IN WHICH SALE HAS BEEN BOO KED BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLO WING JUDGMENTS : - A) DCIT V. TEJAS CONSTRUCTIONS, JALGAON, ITA NO. 934/PN/2009 DT. 31.1.2012 (ITAT, PUNE) B) ITO V. KARDA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., ITA NO. 971/PN/2011 DT. 31.7.2012 (ITAT, PUNE) 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE AMPLE EVIDENCES TO SHOW THAT CASH HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DETAILED REASONING GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) 7 ARVIK PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 5935/MUM/2011 FOR U PHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO AND REQUESTED FOR UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US BY BOTH THE SIDES. IT IS NOTED BY US AT THE OUTSET FROM PERUSAL OF THE I MPUGNED SEIZED DOCUMENT INCLUDED IN THE PAPER BOOK THAT SOME SCRIBBLING HAS BEEN MADE THEREIN . WE FIND THAT NOTHING COULD BE DECIPHERED CLEARLY FROM THE NOTING ON THIS DOCUMENT. SOME INFERENCES WERE DRAWN BY THE AO THAT THIS DOCUMENT INDICATES RECEIPT OF CASH BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS DOCUMENT IS ONE OF THE PAGE S OF A DIARY WHICH IS CLAIMED TO BE MAINTAINED BY SHRI MUKESH PRAJAPATI, ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. DURING HIS EXAMINATION BY THE AO IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, NO CONCRETE INFORMATION COUL D BE ELICITED BY THE AO FROM SHRI PRAJAPATI WHICH COULD HAVE THROWN SOME LIGHT ABOUT THE NATURE AND DETAILS OF THESE SCRIBBLING. THE AO ALSO EXAMINED THE PURCHASER I.E. SHRI HUMAYUN RANGILA. HE ALSO REFUSED TO HAVE PAID ANY AMOUNT IN CASH. NO USEFUL INF ORMATION COULD BE ELICITED IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE AO. IT IS NOTED THAT NO FURTHER CORROBORATION HAS BEEN DONE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES , WHICH COULD HAVE INDICATED EXCHANGE OF CASH. IT IS FURTHER NOTED BY US THAT , AS INFORMED TO US , NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PURCHASER. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS BROUGHT OUT VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES IN THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WHICH, IN OUR OPINION, WOULD DEMOLISH THE CASE OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT IS NOTED BY US THAT THE SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED IN THIS CASE ON 23.9.2005, WHEREAS THE IMPUGNED SEIZED DOCUMENT IS PART OF THE DIARY DT. 15.5.2006 AS HAS ALSO BEEN ACC EPTED BY THE AO AT PAGE 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH OF THE AOS ORDER IS REPRODUCED HERE UNDER FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: 8 ARVIK PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 5935/MUM/2011 4. A - 2 PAGE NO. 48 THIS PAGE PERTAINS TO DT. 15.05.06 THERE IS ENTRY OF RS. 40 LACS CASH AGAINST RANGILA BELOW SALES 1003. 10 . IT IS AN ADMITTED CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT NOTING WAS DONE ON A PAGE DT. 15.5.2006. IN OUR OPINION, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT FOR A PROPERTY WHOSE SALE DEED HAS ALREADY BEEN DULY REGISTERED WITH THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES ON 23.9.2005, THE CASH COMPONENT, IF INVOLVED ANY , WOULD BE PAID AS LATE AS ON 15.5.2006. IT IS FURTHER NOTED BY US THAT THE STAMP VALUE ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE ADJOINING FLATS HAS BEEN VARYING BETWEEN RS.38.5 LAKHS TO RS. 42.20 LAKHS DURING THE PERIOD WHEN THE IMPUGNED SALE DEED WAS REGISTER ED, WHEREAS THESE PROPERTIES WERE SOLD BETWEEN RS.15 LAKHS TO RS. 19 LAKHS. THUS, THERE WAS CLEARLY A GAP BETWEEN THE STAMP VALUE AND THE ACTUAL SALES CONSIDERATION. THUS, NO CONCLUSIVE INFERENCE COULD BE DRAWN THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE STAMP VALUE WAS MOR E, THERE WAS EXCHANGE OF CASH BETWEEN THE PARTIES , UNLESS SOME MORE COGENT CONTRARY MATERIAL IS BROUGHT ON RECORD. 11 . LASTLY, WE FIND FORCE IN ANOTHER ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT EVEN IF, ALTHOUGH DENIED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS ASSUMED THAT CASH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SINCE THE ENTIRE SALES CONSIDERATION OF IMPUGNED P ROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND BOOKED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN F.Y 2005 - 06. ON THE BASIS OF PERUSAL OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IT IS NOTED THAT THE SALE VALUE OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT HAS BEEN BOOKED IN F.Y 2005 - 06. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD. THUS, IF AT ALL SOME ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN MADE ONLY DURING F.Y 2005 - 06 , ALTHOUGH WE HAVE ALREADY HELD ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCES BROU GHT BEFORE US THAT IT COULD NOT BE CONCLUDED 9 ARVIK PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 5935/MUM/2011 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ANY CASH AMOUNT. WE DERIVE OUR SUPPORT FROM THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF ITO V. KARDA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. ( SUPRA ). THE RELEVANT PORTION IS REPRODUCED HER EUNDER : - 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE IN THIS CASE THAT THE UN - RECORDED ENTRIES OF CASH RECEIPTS FOUND WERE IN RESPECT OF THE SALE OF THE FLATS. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, IT WAS FORMING THE PART OF THE SALE CONSI DERATION OF THE FLATS. THE NAMES OF THE BUYERS OF THE FLATS ARE ALSO AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE ALSO AGREED THAT IT WAS A PART OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION INDIRECTLY ADMITTING PARTLY SUPPRESSING OF THE SALE PRICES OF THE FLATS. WE FIND THAT THE CIT (A) HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF DHANVARSHA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) AS WELL AS GOLANI BROS. (SUPRA). IN OUR OPINION, THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT AS THE NATURE OF THE RECEIPT IS NOT DISPUTED AS THAT OF THE PART OF THE SALE CONS IDERATION OF THE FLATS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN THAT CASE, THE SAME IS TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS RECORDED THE SALE OF THE RESPECTIVE FLAT. WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CO NFIRMED. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TEJAS CONSTRUCTIONS ( SUPRA ). 12 . THUS, RE SPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE JUDG MENTS AND IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND FACTS AND EVIDENCES BROUGHT BEFORE US, WE FIND TH AT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS PER LAW AND FACTS , AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 13 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 2 T H FEBRUARY, 2016. S D / - S D / - (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (ASHWANI TANEJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE : 1 2 T H FEBRUARY, 2016 10 ARVIK PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 5935/MUM/2011 COPY TO : 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT(A) - 39, MUMBAI 4) THE CIT CONCERNED 5) THE D.R, A BENCH, MUMBAI 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR *SSL* I.T.A.T, MUMBAI