Assessee is a partnership firm engaged in business of civil construction, sold a land to Shri Govind Reality Pvt Ltd for a sum of Rs. 1.20 crores through an unregistered agreement and received an advance of Rs. 10 lakhs. Shri Govind Reality Pvt Ltd further sold said land for consideration of Rs. 4.70 crores to Swami Vivekanand Institute of Neurology Neurosurgery & Spine and M/s Swami Mediservices Pvt Ltd. Sale consideration amount of Rs. 4.70 crores was received by assessee from Swami Vivekanand Institute of Neurology Neurosurgery & Spine and M/s Swami Mediservices Pvt Ltd. Assessee retained balance due of Rs. 1.10 crores from Shri Govind Reality Pvt Ltd and passed excess amount to Shri Govind Reality Pvt Ltd. Assessee offered to tax sale consideration of Rs 1.20 crores received from Shri Govind Reality Pvt Ltd as its business turnover. Assessing Officer held that Shri Govind Reality Pvt Ltd was not at all owner of assessee’s land and assessee was trying to swindle amount of Rs. 3.50 crores as income of Shri Govind Reality Pvt Ltd and eventually trying to evade tax by presenting an unrealistic picture of financial accounting. Therefore, he made additions on account of entire sale consideration of Rs. 4.70 crores as business income of assessee. On appeal the CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 3.50 crores made by the Assessing Officer. CIT(A) enhanced the income under section 251 for failure to charge the interest as per the terms of the agreement. Accordingly addition of an amount of Rs. 6.40 lakhs was made on account of notional interest. On cross appeal the Tribunal held that in view of law laid down in case of CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (2017)86 taxmann.com 94 (SC) an unregistered agreement’ has no efficacy in eyes of law, therefore, Shri Govind Reality Pvt Ltd could not be treated as owner of land on basis of impugned unregistered agreement, and accordingly, there was no transfer or sale of immovable property by Shri Govind Reality Pvt Ltd Swami Vivekanand Institute of Neurology Neurosurgery & Spine and M/s Swami Mediservices Pvt Ltd. Accordingly addition made to income of assessee was justified. Tribunal deleted the enhancement made by the CIT(A). (AY. 2015-16)
ITO v. Rishi Construction. (2024) 204 ITD 159 (Indore) (Trib.)
S. 28(i) : Business income-Unregistered agreement-Deemed owner-Capital gains-Sale of land-Assessing Officer is justified in making addition on account of entire sale consideration received from ultimate buyer in hands of assessee. [S. 2(47), 4]
Leave a Reply