CIT vs. UDAY VEER SINGH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . 24.11.2010 . Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate for the appellant department. . . + ITA 1796/2010 ITA 1798/2010 and CM 20524/2010 (common order) . For the assessment year 2001-02, the assessee filed its return of income declaring income of ` 1,95,760/-. We may mention that in the said assessment year, search and seizure operations were carried out on the premises of the assessee under Section 132 of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had shown his income in the form of receipt of commission against property specified by it. He also found that various bank deposits were made. The Assessing Officer treated those bank deposits, in the sum of Rs. 1.13 crores as sale proceeds of the properties which according to the Assessing Officer were not offered for taxation. The assessee duly explained all these deposits before the CIT (A), as a result, CIT (A) partly accepted the appeal and restrict the addition to the extent of ` 12.57 lacs, thus the addition of 1.13 crores to 12.57 lacs. This order is confirmed by the ITAT in the following manner:- ?10. We have considered the rival submission and perused the material on record. In the present case, the AO has issued notice to the assessee on 10.07.2007 asking the assessee to submit the return in prescribed form for the AY 2001-02. The return was filed by the assessee on 26.07.2007. As per letter dated . . 14.9.2007, the AO asked the assessee to furnish certain details which were filed by the assessee on 20.12.2007 as noted by the AO in para. 4 of the assessment order. Thereafter the AO again asked the assessee to furnish more details vide order sheet entry dated 20.12.2007 and, thereafter, the assessment order was passed by the AO on 28.12.2007. These facts show that there was paucity of time because even after completion of the search on 22.9.2005, notice u/s 153A was issued on 10.07.2007 and first questionnaire u/s 142(1) was issued on 14.09.2007. First reply was stated to be filed by the assessee on 20.12.2007, but there is no mention in the assessment order as to whether any more reminders were issued by the AO during the intervening period. These facts clearly show that there was paucity of time for the assessee to furnish the details required by the AO on 20.12.2007 because the assessment was getting time barred on 31.12.2007. In view of these facts, we are of the considered opinion that additional evidences were rightly admitted by the CIT (A) and we confirm the same because the CIT (A) had duly confronted those evidences to the AO and obtained remand report. 11. Regarding the merit of additions deleted by the CIT (A), we find that the same has been done by the CIT (A) on the basis of remand report of the AO. In para 9 of his order, it is stated by the CIT (A) that in the remand report, the AO himself has submitted that no addition is called for to the extent of ` 4537967 and to that extent addition was deleted by the CIT (A) on the basis of this remand report of the AO. Out of balance amount of ` 6840722/-, a clear finding is given by the CIT (A) that on the basis of statement of affairs of the present year and preceding year, the amount of deficit is ` 1257050/- for which addition was upheld by him. He deleted the balance addition. Considering all these facts, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the CIT (A) regarding the additions deleted by him because the same has been done by him on the basis of remand report submitted by the AO and no specific defect could be pointed out by the Ld. DR of the Revenue on this aspect in the order of the CIT (A). We, therefore, confirm the order of the CIT (A) on both these aspects.? We do not find any question of law which arises for consideration The appeal is accordingly dismissed. . A.K. SIKRI, J. . SURESH KAIT, J. NOVEMBER 24, 2010 skb . 4 to 11#