PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 LUDHIANA vs. HARINDER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that no substantial questions of law arose in the present appeal. The Court noted that a search was conducted on Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd., and during assessment proceedings, the Managing Director of Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd. stated that 50% of the unexplained investment belonged to the respondent-assessee. Subsequently, assessment proceedings under Sections 147/148 were completed. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana, revised the AO's order under Section 263, holding that the entire undisclosed investment should be assessed in the hands of Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd. The ITAT upheld this order in the appeal filed by Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd., and this order was not challenged by Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the High Court concluded that once the entire undisclosed investment was assessed in the hands of Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd., assessing the same amount in the hands of the assessee would not be justified. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ludhiana, concerns assessment year 2008-09. The Revenue challenges an order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.506/CHD/2014. The ITAT had deleted additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and additions on account of profit from sale of plots. The AO's proceedings were initiated under Sections 147/148 after a search on Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana, revised the AO's order under Section 263, opining that the entire undisclosed investment should be assessed in the hands of Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd. The ITAT upheld this view in the appeal filed by Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd., and that order was not challenged further by Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd.
What were the issues?
1. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in deleting the addition of Rs.1,28,36,000/- made by the AO under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act and the addition of Rs.2,98,39,000/- on account of profit on sale of plots. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in granting relief to the assessee by holding that the same addition was made in the case of M/s Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd., without appreciating that the AO formed his opinion based on evidence gathered during assessment proceedings, including statements of sellers and submissions of directors of M/s Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd., and without appreciating that the assessment in the case of M/s Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd. had not attained finality. Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The ITAT erred in deleting the additions by relying on the case of M/s Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd. without considering the evidence gathered by the AO and the fact that the assessment in the case of M/s Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd. had not attained finality.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.102-2 Date of decision: 10.05.2018 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ludhiana ....Appellant versus Harinder ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL * * * Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant. * * * RAJESH BINDAL, J.
Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Division Bench, Chandigarh (for short – 'the Tribunal') passed in ITA No.506/CHD/2014. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2008-09 and seeks to raise the following substantial questions of law:- i)
Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in deleting addition of Rs.1,28,36,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act and in deleting the addition of Rs.2,98,39,000/- on account of profit on sale of plots. ii)
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in granting relief to the assessee holding that same addition has been made in the case of M/s Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating that the Assessing Officer has formed opinion based on Jyoti Sharma 2018.05.24 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- evidences gathered during assessment proceedings in the form of statement of sellers and submission of the directors of M/s Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd. before the DCIT, Central Circle and without appreciating that the assessment in the case of M/s Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd. has not attained finality.”
Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that search was conducted on the premises of Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd. During the course of assessment proceedings, Managing Director of Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd. made a statement that 50% of unexplained investment belong to the respondent-assessee. The information was passed on to the Assessing Officer. Assessment proceedings under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short – 'the Act') were completed. The present proceedings arise out of those assessment orders. Order passed by the Assessing Officer was revised by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana, in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act. It was opined that the entire undisclosed investment is to be assessed at the hands of Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd. In the appeal filed by Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the revisional authority.
As per the information available with the Department, Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd. has not challenged the order passed by the Tribunal upholding the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana, under Section 263 of the Act.
In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, once the entire undisclosed investment has been assessed in the hands of Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd., the assessment of the same amount in the hands of the assessee Jyoti Sharma 2018.05.24 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -3- will not be justified.
Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts, no substantial questions of law arise in the present appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal)
Judge May 10, 2018 (Deepak Sibal)
Jyoti 1 Judge Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No Jyoti Sharma 2018.05.24 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026