INCOME TAX OFFICE, LUDHIANA vs. DEEPAK KUMAR, LUDHIANA

5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that addition of Rs.1,52,00,000/- made by the A.O. on account of variation in respect of issue of unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE as the assessee failed to explain the nature and source of investment in purchase of immovable property for Rs. 1,92,50,0001- but registered it at Rs.40,50,0001 - during the financial year 2018-19 relevant to A.Y. 2019-20.

before it is finally disposed off."

3. The assessee has raised following grounds in its cross objection:-

1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the case to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, since before the Ld. Assessing Officer, same submissions/arguments were made and no additional arguments/evidence was filed and, as such, setting aside the case to the file of the Assessing officer is bad in law.

2. That even otherwise, the issue under consideration on account of purchase of plot from "M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd." has been adjudicated and decided by the Hon'ble IT AT, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in similar identical issue in & in favour of assessee thus, it is a covered issue. That since it is covered issue and assessee being the purchaser of plot 3. from M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. who is the seller and in respect of plots sold by the M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee, the rate as per registered consideration having been accepted and, thus, the CIT(A) should not have set aside the case and rather decided the issue in favour of assessee. That respondent craves leave to add or amend the ground of cross 4. objections before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off."

6. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and detailed submissions were made by the assessee starting from pages 19 to 32 of the order, both with regard to the reopening of the case u/s 147 and also on merits. It was contended on merits by the assessee that, though, it is a fact that while framing the assessment in the case of "M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.", the sale rate of plot to different persons by the M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt.Ltd., was adopted at 38,500/- per sq. yard and that rate was applied in the case of assessee for purchase of 500 sq yard of plot. Thus, the total consideration was determined at Rs. 1,92,50,000/- and by reducing the recorded consideration of Rs. 40,00,500/-, the addition of Rs. 1,52,50,000/- was made in the reopened assessment of the assessee. It was, however, contended by the assessee that no incriminating material was found by the department, in so far, as the purchase of 500 sq. yard of plot by the assessee from M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt.Ltd., at the rate of Rs. 38,500/- was determined on the basis of extrapolation made in the case of M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., while framing the assessment for Asstt. Year 2021-22.

7. It was also brought to the notice of the CIT(A) by the assessee that in the appeal filed by M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt.Ltd, the CIT(A)-5,,Ludhiana had deleted such addition made in the case of M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt.Ltd. So, was stated that the addition in the hands of assessee is not maintainable. The CIT(A), however, set aside the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of claim made by the appellant.

s as raised by the department and 'Cross Objections' of the assessee and the order of the Assessing Officer. The facts are not disputed in the sense that the very basis of reopening u/s 148, the case of the assessee was on account of sale rate of 38,500/- per sq. yard, as adopted by way of extrapolation in the case of "M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.", by the department. While framing their search assessment for Asstt. Year 2021 -22. It is also as per record that the Ld. CIT(A), while adjudicating the issue of extrapolation of rate in the case of M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, had deleted such addition made in the hands of said company and the department had come up in appeal before the ITAT in ITA No. 880/Chd/2024. The said addition have been deleted as per copy of the order placed in the Paper Book at pages 9 to 67. The finding in this respect have been given in the case of M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, by the Tribunal starting from para 59 and 60 of the said order.

11. Further, we have also gone through the order of the ITAT in the case of M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt.Ltd., in departmental appeal in for Asstt. Year 2019-20. Similar addition was made and that addition was deleted by the CIT(A) and the department had come up in appeal in the ITAT in Appeal No. 190/Chd/d2025 and vide order, dated 03.09.2025 the Tribunal confirmed the order of CIT(A), deleting the addition on the basis of earlier order of the ITAT in ITA No. 880/Chd/2024. Since the very basis of addition as made by the Assessing Officer does not exist at all. No purpose will be served in prolonging the litigation by setting aside the order to the file of the Assessing Officer, as the issue had attained finality at the level of the Tribunal. Thus, we allow the cross objection of the assessee and delete the addition as made by the Assessing Officer, following the order of Tribunal in the case of M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., for Asstt. Year 2021 - 22 and Asstt. Year 2019-20 as cited 'supra'.