Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) (Assessment Year : 2009-10) DCIT Vs. Smt. Ginni Devi Central Circle – 25, E-270, Shastri Nagar New Delhi New Delhi PAN No. ACCPD 2043 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Hiren Mehta, C.A. Revenue by Shri Najmi, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing: 11.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 16.08.2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, JM:
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 22.02.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 29, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2009-10.
The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under :
2 3. Assessee is an individual stated to be having income from salary, Business, Income from House Property and income from other sources. Assessee had filed return of income for A.Y. 2009- 10 u/s 139(1) of the Act on 18.01.2010 declaring income of Rs.5,05,416/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 02.09.2010. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 15.10.2013 in SRM group of cases including the assessee. Consequently, notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 17.06.2014 and in response to which, assessee electronically filed the return of income on 26.12.2014 declaring total income at Rs.5,05,416/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 153A/144 of the Act vide order dated 20.05.2016 and the total income was determined at Rs.4,24,16,527/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 22.02.2017 allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds of appeals: 1. “That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- made by Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) had erred in law as well as facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,32,274/- made by assessing officer on account of commission income.
3. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,36,245/- made by the assessing officer on account of rental income.
3 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) had erred in law as well as facts in deleting the disallowance of exemption Rs.2,20,718/- u/s 10 of IT Act despite the fact that the assessee did not submit any details/documents/explanation.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by relying on the decision in the case of Sh. Kabul Chawla by the jurisdictional High Court which has not been accepted by the department and SLP against the same has been filed before Hon’ble Supreme Court.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in arriving at the conclusion that the words ‘total income ’ as used in section 153A would only mean undisclosed income discovered from seized/incriminating material.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in adopting restrictive and pedantic interpretation of the scope of assessment u/s 153A of the Act.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in arriving at the conclusion that the words ‘total income’ as used in section 153A would only mean income unearthed during search when the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Canara Housing Development Company Vs DCIT dated 09-08-2014 has held that total income includes income unearthed during search and any other income.
That the grounds of appeal
are without prejudice to each other.
10. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground(s) of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
4. Before us, Learned DR at the outset, submitted that all the grounds are interconnected and the grievance of the Revenue is that CIT(A) by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, 61 Taxmann.com
4 412 (Del) had deleted the addition. Before us, Learned DR supported the order of AO.
5. Learned AR on the other hand reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A) and supported the order of CIT(A).
6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the various additions that were made by AO and which was deleted by CIT(A). We find that CIT(A) has noted the fact that assessee had filed the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on18.01.2010 declaring total income at Rs.5,05,416/- which was processed on 02.09.2010 u/s 143(1) of the Act. Search had taken place on 15.10.2013 and on the date of search no proceedings were pending. He has further given a finding that no incriminating material was found or seized during the course of search and that the additions made were not emanating from any documents found or seized during the search proceedings nor any proceedings were pending or abated. CIT(A) while deleting the addition had relied on the decisions rendered in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra). Before us, Revenue has not placed on record any contrary binding decision in its support nor has pointed to any fallacy in the findings of CIT(A). In such a situation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A). Thus the grounds of Revenue are dismissed.
5 In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 7.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16.08.2021