DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD vs. PEAKWOOD REALITY PVT.LTD., GURGAON

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated
26.10.2022 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) – Gurgaon [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year
2012-13, raising following grounds:

Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the ad
6/- made on account of unexplained i quantum addition on this issue has the hands of M/s M3M India Holdings ifferent for the Income Tax purpose?
the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting holding that same addition has already b of M/s M3M India Holdings in view of th tained by Ld. CIT (A) in the case M/
s deleted by Ld. ITAT vide its order pass
022 dated 23.09.2022?
acts of the case are that the ass as “Ess Gee Shelter Pvt. Ltd”. A company was with Mr Suresh A s but they sold their stake for o M/s Royal Crown Projects P oyal Crown Project Pvt. Ltd. b sessee company. The M3M gr ies namely M/s ‘Kenwood Merc oodfaith Builders Pvt. Ltd. (GBP land pool measuring 430 acr purpose of acquisition of said lan ngs transferred initial amount o ealtech Pvt. Ltd., who in turn t
Crown Project Pvt. Ltd., from ed to M/s Peakwood Realty Pv wood Realty Pvt. Ltd. acquired th nies namely KMPL and GBPL on n of Rs.198 crores i.e. after five kwood Reality Pvt. Ltd.
2
ddition of Rs.
nvestment by already been whereas both the aforesaid een confirmed he fact that the /s M3M India sed in ITA No.
sessee company
At that time the Amritlal Gandhi r an amount of Pvt. Ltd. and in became holding roup wanted to cantile Pvt. Ltd”.
PL) as those two res at Manger, nd of 430 acres, of Rs.175 crores transferred said where, Rs.136
vt. Ltd. (i.e. the he share holding n 22.02.2012 for e days from the transfer of the share
Family to M/s Royal
2.1 A search and s
133A of the Income- out at the premises o
In view of certain inc the assessee found i
Group, action u/s 1
after due complian provisions of the Ac
Assessing Officer of Officer of the assesse laptop found at the Said laptop was state who was Chartered A to 21 of Annexure A-
Group at Nariman Po showed additional c respect of alleged
Kenwood Mercantile
Ess Gee Shelters Pv
Ltd.). Accordingly, completed u/s 153C
Rs.62,89,71,086/- a M/s Pea s of M/s Peakwood Realty Pvt.
Crown Project Pvt. Ltd.
seizure action u/s 132 and su
-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Ac of M/s Ess Gee group of cases criminating material belonging t in the course of the searches
153C of the Act for issue of no ce of the procedure laid do ct. In the satisfaction note re f the searched person as wel ee, it is noted that data was ext main office premises of the ‘Es ed and admitted to belonging to Accountant of the group and rela
5 seized from the office premise oint, Ms. Bina Shah stated that onsideration of Rs.62,89,71,08
transaction of acquisition of Pvt. Ltd. and Goodfaith Build vt. Ltd. (now known as Peakw the Assessing Officer in th
C of the Act on 29.12.2017 add s unexplained investment. On kwood Reality Pvt. Ltd.
3
Ltd. by Gandhi rvey action u/s ct’) were carried on 17.06.2015. to/pertaining to at the Ess Gee otice was taken own under the ecorded by the ll as Assessing tracted from the ss Gee Group’ .
o Ms. Bina Shah ation to page 16
s of the Ess Gee t said document
86/- in cash in the shares of ders Pvt. Ltd by wood Realty Pvt.
he assessment ded the sum of further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) delete the said amount of Assessing Officer in t confirmed by the Ld
Holdings. Aggrieved, way of raising ground
3.We have heard th counsel for the part available on record. T to the addition of ₹62
the assessee as un deleted by the Lear
[CIT(A)]. The Revenu preferred the pres
Representative (DR) h the case of M3M Hol
Tribunal (ITAT) on pertained to the asse for the assessee has by the Revenue befor the appeal concernin that the Revenue’s o
ITAT had erred in ho made in the hands
M/s Pea d the addition on the ground t
Rs.62,89,55,192/- was alread the case of M/s M3M Holdings
. First Appellate Authority in th the Revenue is in appeal before ds as reproduced above.
he rival submissions advanced ties and have carefully peruse
The main issue in the present
2,89,71,086/-, which was made nexplained investment but wa rned Commissioner of Income ue, being aggrieved by the sai sent appeal.
The Learned has contended that a similar ad dings was deleted by the Incom the ground that the transacti essee. On the other hand, the drawn our attention to the sub re the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryan ng M3M India Holdings. It has own stand before the High Cou olding that the addition ought n of M3M Holdings. The Revenu kwood Reality Pvt. Ltd.
4
that addition for dy made by the and which was he case of M3M the Tribunal by by the learned ed the material appeal pertains in the hands of as subsequently e Tax (Appeals) id deletion, has Departmental ddition made in me Tax Appellate ion in question learned counsel bmissions made na High Court in been submitted urt was that the not to have been ue had asserted that, based on the established that M/
question through con non-existent firms. T was correctly made holding company of merely a paper con
Revenue has itself ta sustained in the han appeal, disputing the transaction belongs
Furthermore, we fin
Court, in its judgme recorded the Revenu the acquisition of 4
However, in the cas solely on the ground made under the prov
1961, without invoki
In light of the above f the High Court, we fi reasoned order of th present appeal stand
M/s Pea e search and post-search inq
/s M3M Holdings had acquire nduit entities, comprising paper
Thus, as per the Revenue’s stan in the hands of M3M Holding f the assessee, while the asse nduit. In our considered opin aken a position that the additi nds of M3M Holdings, the filing e findings of the CIT(A) on the g to M3M Holdings, appears to nd that the Hon’ble Punjab &
ent dated 22.10.2024 in ITA N e’s submission that the ultimat
430 acres of land was M3M e of M3M Holdings, the additi d that such an addition could visions of Section 153A of the I ing Section 153C in the case of facts and the Revenue’s own con ind no justification for interferin he CIT(A). Accordingly, the gr ds dismissed.
kwood Reality Pvt. Ltd.
5
quiries, it was ed the land in r companies and nd, the addition gs, the ultimate essee itself was nion, when the ion ought to be g of the present ground that the o be untenable.
& Haryana High
No. 97 of 2023, te beneficiary of India Holdings.
ion was deleted d not have been Income Tax Act, f M3M Holdings.
ntentions before ng with the well- round raised in 3.1 Before us, the application under R following ground:
"27. Respond against him
The responde support the o decided aga
3.2 The Ld. counsel of the ITAT Rules th decided against him decisions and submi be adjudicated:
 83 ITR
 129 IT  220 I
Ltd
 176 C
CIT
 102 IT  284 I
P.Ltd.
 436 IT 3.3 However, we fin raised by the Revenu the assessee are ren not adjudicating upo
M/s Pea

Ld. counsel for the assesse
Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 19
dent may support order on grounds m:- ent, though he may not have appeale order appealed against on any of the g ainst him."
TR 475 (All) Moralia & Sons vs. CIT
Mumbai;
Dated: 30/01/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

M/s Pea he appeal of the Revenue is dis ule 27 of the ITAT Rules of the uous.
ced in the open Court on 30/0
GH KARHAIL)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu kwood Reality Pvt. Ltd.
7
smissed and the assessee is also 01/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai