Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: magicbricks in Acit Cir 28(3), Navi Mumbai vs Sai Shirdi Constructions, Navi Mumbai on 5 March, 2018Matching Fragments
(4) The appellant prays that the order of CIT (A) on the above grounds be reversed and that of the Assessing officer be restored."
3. Briefly stated the facts are that, the assessee is a builder and developer filed its return of income on 21.09.2011 declaring income of ₹.1,02,15,870/-. The assessment was completed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 145 of the Act on 27.03.2014 determining the income at ₹.9,89,94,780/-. While completing the assessment the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹.8,83,43,028/- towards unaccounted sale receipts on certain flats and addition of ₹.4,35,881/- u/s. 69C of the Act treating certain purchases as bogus purchases. The assessee constructed a housing project named "Sai Saakshat" in sector -6, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai having four wings with 15 floors each and the total number of flats are 232. In the course of Assessment Proceedings, the assessee was required to give name and particulars of the customers, Flat No, Area, agreement value, booking ITA.No.5135/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Sai Shirdi Constructions dates, advances received on different dates etc., in respect of the sale of flats and the assessee submitted its reply on 30.01.2014. On the basis of the information furnished by the assessee, Assessing Officer prepared charts which are annexed as 1 & 2 to the Assessment Order. The graph drawn by Assessing Officer is extracted in Page No.2 of the Assessment Order and based on this chart the Assessing Officer was of the view that there is a huge variation in the sale prices of different flats. The Assessing Officer also took a printout from Website www.magicbricks.com showing the price trend in the Kharghar locality from the period October 2007 to December 2013 and this was provided to the assessee. In view of this the assessee was called upon to show cause as to why its Books of Accounts should not be rejected u/s. 145 of the Act as according to him book results are not reliable. The assessee submitted its reply stating that the alleged graph purporting to display sale price trends in Kharghar drawn from www.magicbricks.com should not be considered as the material and evidence for ascertaining the actual price received by the assessee as there is complete documentation supporting the price accounted for in the Books of Accounts by the assessee. It was contended that the said graph is based on unknown material gathered by unknown people of unknown qualification and credibility. It was also contended that there are no particulars of record, the actual data that has gone into in making of the said graph. Therefore, it was contended that ITA.No.5135/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Sai Shirdi Constructions in the absence of the complete details of the material utilized for preparation of the said graph it is not possible to furnish cogent explanation. It was also submitted before the Assessing Officer and requested to obtain the complete information from the website and forward the same to the assessee to offer its comments. It was also contended that the said graph is cryptic display purporting to cover the big locality of Kharghar over a long span of time from October 2007 to December 2013 and the graph is webpage of a commercial website and the information disseminated on a commercial website is prepared and displayed on the basis of the vested interest of the website owners and paid clients. Therefore, it was contended the said graph takes a macro view and for that reason fails to provide any credible comparable instances for any specific property in Kharghar. It was further contended and denied that the aforesaid website information strengthens the argument that assessee has taken large portion of sale proceeds in cash. It was reiterated that assessee never accepted a single rupee in cash not accounted for in the Books of Accounts and therefore it was submitted to the Assessing Officer not to entertain such views merely on the basis of the unreliable information and merely on the basis of alleged price trends.
5. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) considered the detailed submissions made by the assessee with various evidences furnished before him deleted the addition observing that the Assessing Officer failed to make proper enquiries and there were no enquires made from the purchasers of the flats and the exercise was done merely on a guess work and based on an unreliable information displayed in the website www.magicbricks.com.
6. Before us, Ld.DR submitted that the assessee has not given any proper explanation, replies in the course of the Assessment Proceedings and the assessee provided various information and explanation before the Ld.CIT(A) to justify the huge variation in sale prices and therefore since all these information was not available before the Assessing Officer the matter may be restored to the file Assessing Officer for denovo assessment.
ITA.No.5135/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Sai Shirdi Constructions
7. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that whatever information is called for by the Assessing Officer is provided in the course of Assessment Proceedings. The Assessing Officer is mainly harping on the information in the website www.magicbricks.com to come to the conclusion that there is a huge variation in sale prices for which the assessee submitted that the information in the website is unreliable and the website itself displayed disclaimer stating that it is not responsible for the accuracy of data displayed on the website and the data is not on actual transactions and that it does not give any guarantee and the data should be verified independently. Therefore, the Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that based on this information which is appearing in the website the Assessing Officer tried to compare the sale prices which were reflected in the website and that of the actual sale prices and came to the conclusion that there is a huge variation in sale prices which is factually not correct.
12. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. In this case the Assessing Officer noticed from the information submitted by the assessee, as well as from the information obtained by him from the website www.magicbricks.com that there is a huge variation in sale prices of the flats constructed by the assessee within the wing and also within the floor of the residential project constructed by assessee. The Assessing Officer after making his own analysis and ITA.No.5135/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Sai Shirdi Constructions relying on the data furnished in the website concluded that there is a huge variation in sale prices. On a query by the Assessing Officer that there is a huge variation of sale prices of different flats, the assessee submitted that it had always tried to sell at the maximum prices that it can be able to get and its transactions are at arm's length and assessee has accounted what it had received from the buyers. Assessee requested the Assessing Officer to specify the transactions where there is a price variation at almost 100% within the gap of its sale, so that assessee could submit its reply. It was also contended that unless there is evidence and receiving cash other than the actual sale price, addition cannot be made on a guess work. It was also contended that the website www.magicbricks.com cannot be relied at all as the data shown in the website is not authentic and without any basis. The assessee also contended that the Books of Accounts of the assessee cannot be rejected under provisions of section 145(3) of the Act and should not be attracted to the assessee as it had disclosed correct sale prices and sale proceeds and not a paisa received by it over and above what is disclosed in its Books of Accounts. It was contended that transactions are at the market value prevailing at the material at that point of time, and on opinion basis, on mere guess work, recording market prices is not adequate material in the absence of evidence to the fact that the actually assessee received more than consideration that of record in its Books of Accounts. The submissions of the assessee were ignored by ITA.No.5135/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Sai Shirdi Constructions the Assessing Officer and he proceeded to reject the Books of Accounts based on his own analysis and also relying on the data in the website www.magicbricks.com.