| COURT: | ITAT Mumbai |
| CORAM: | B. R. Baskaran (AM), Pawan Singh (JM) |
| SECTION(S): | 68 |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | on money, Undisclosed Income |
| COUNSEL: | Dr. K. Shivram, Sashank Dandu |
| DATE: | May 25, 2018 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | June 21, 2018 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2012-13 |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
| 'On Money': The fact that the assessee has sold flats at an undervaluation does not mean that he has understated the consideration and earned undisclosed 'on money'. The mere presumption that excess price could have been charged is not a ground for coming to the conclusion that the assessee did charge a higher price. The burden of proving such understatement or concealment is on the Revenue (All important judgements considered) | |
The case law relied by Assessing Officer in ITO Vs Diamond Investment and Properties ITA No. 5537/M/2009 is not applicable on the facts of the present case. In case of Diamond Investment and Properties (supra), the flats were sold to the related parties was much lower than the price charged from the other parties. However, there is no allegation of related parties’ transaction in the present case. The coordinate bench of Tribunal Neelkamal Realtor & Erectors India (P0 Ltd (2013) 38 taxmann.com 195 held that when the assessee offered an explanation for charging lower price in respect of some of flats sold by it and Assessing Officer without controverting such explanation made addition to income of assessee by applying rate of another flat sold by it, Assessing Officer was not justified in his action. Similar view was taken by another bench of Tribunal in ACIT Vs Rustom Soil Sethna
Recent Comments