ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI vs. TRILOK CHAND CHAUDHARY, NEW DELHI

This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-31, New Delhi dated 18.04.2018 pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in adjudicating that no addition can be made in an assessment u/s 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'] when no incriminating document was found during the course of search and further erred in not adjudicating the ground relating to the addition made u/s 2(14)(iii) of the Act and u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 11.09.2013 and 17.09.2013 in the case of AKN group of cases. The assessee was also covered in the search and, accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee u/s 153A of the Act.

On perusal of the computation of income filed by the assessee for the impugned Assessment Year, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has sold a land situated at Kherki, Dhauala, Distt. Gurgaon Haryana for a consideration of Rs. 8,41,87,500/-, earned capital gains on it, but claimed the same to be exempt.

The Assessing Officer was of the firm belief that the said land was not agricultural land as per the relevant provisions of the Act and proceeded by computing capital gains and made addition of Rs. 7,82,38,250/-.

The Assessing Officer further found that the assessee was holding 50% shares in M/s Dream Green Land Realtors Pvt Ltd from which it has received advance of Rs. 1.26 crores. The assessee was show caused to explain why the same should not be added as deemed dividend in his hands u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Assessing Officer found that the reply of the assessee was not supported by any evidence and made addition of Rs. 1.26 crores.

The assessee challenged the assessment before the ld. CIT(A) and vehemently contended that the impugned assessment order is devoid of any incriminating material found at the time of search and, therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 and Meeta Gutgutia 395 ITR 526 squarely apply on the facts of the case.

After considering the facts and judicial decisions relied upon by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) was convinced that the impugned additions are devoid of any incriminating material found at the time of search and, therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Kabul Chawla [supra] Meeta Gutgutia [supra] squarely apply on the facts of the case and deleted the addition.

Before us the ld. DR fairly stated that the impugned additions are not based upon any incriminating material but placed reliance on the findings of the Assessing Officer.

Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the ld. CIT(A).

We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed fact is that both the additions are not made out of any incriminating material found at the time of search but have been made on the basis of computation of income filed by the assessee and the balance sheet which was examined during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings.

The binding decision of the Hon'ble High Court [supra] have been followed by the ld. CIT(A) on the afore-stated facts. Therefore, no interference is called for.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in is dismissed.