GLITZ BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 765/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 February 2020AY 2006-074 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not claim any deduction for the sum in question, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was unwarranted. The Tribunal noted that a similar addition had been deleted in the assessee's own case for the same assessment year in earlier proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order related to assessment year 2006-07. The primary issue involved a disallowance of Rs. 4,59,999/- under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that no deduction was claimed for this sum, and a similar disallowance in a group company's case was deleted by the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether a disallowance under Section 40A(3) can be made when no deduction was claimed by the assessee for the expenditure. Whether a repeated addition, previously deleted by the ITAT, can be sustained in reassessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Kaushik, Adv. and Shri
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Kedia, CIT-DR

PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the impugned order dated 31.10.2014, passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXIII, New Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.153A for the Assessment Year 2006-07. In the grounds of appeal

, the assessee has raised following grounds:-

1.

1. That the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXIII, New Delhi are bad in law and void ab-initio.

2. That the CIT(A) erred in utilizing the material seized in the course of search on BPTP group of cases (excluding appellant) on 15.11.2007 which did not belong to the appellant. 2.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has erred in holding that wherever the date of PDCs are extended, interest is to be taken to have been paid @ 15% p.a. in cash outside the books of account and is to be treated as undisclosed income. 2.2 That no enquiries were made from any of the alleged recipients of the interest and none was confronted with the relevant document(s). 2.3 That the addition was unwarranted being based merely on surmises and conjectures without proof and corroboration by independent evidence.

3. That on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.4,59,999/- u/s. 40A(3) of the IT Act despite the fact that no deduction in respect of said sum was claimed in the computation of income from business. 3.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of Rs.4,59,999/- despite the fact that similar disallowance made under similar circumstances was deleted by ITAT vide order dated 22.08.2014 in in case of M/s. Westland Developer Pvt. Ltd. for the AY 2006-07 being a group company copy of which order was filed before the CIT(A) and whose facts were akin to the facts of the appellant company.

2. At the outset, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that grounds no.1 is general in nature; therefore, needs no adjudication. Grounds no.2 to 2.5 were not pressed at the time of hearing, therefore, the same are dismissed as not pressed. The only effective ground relates to addition of Rs.4,59,999/- u/s.40A(3).

3. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in assessee’s own case for the Assessment Year 2006-07, Tribunal vide order dated 2nd January, 2015 has deleted the addition in the first round of quantum proceedings u/s.143(3). Now the same addition has been made once again in the assessment order passed u/s.153A. Since same very addition has been deleted, therefore, this addition cannot be sustained in the impugned proceedings u/s.153A.

4.

Ld. DR though has sought adjournment for all the appeals of the assessee, however, when it was pointed out that the present appeal stands covered, then adjournment sought for present Assessment Year was rejected and all the other appeals were adjourned. On merits, he relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT (A).

5.

Here, in this case, original assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3) vide order dated 31.12.2008 wherein addition on account of Section 40A(3) was made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.4,59,999/-. The said addition finally stood decided by the Tribunal in ITAs no.1747 and 1406/Del/2018, wherein the Tribunal vide order dated 2nd January, 2015 has deleted the said addition on merits, holding that once assessee has not claimed any deduction in respect of cost of purchase of land, whether original or additional payment, then there is no question of disallowance u/s. 40A (3). Now again similar addition has been reiterated in the present assessment proceedings passed u/s.153A in the wake of search and seizure operation conducted on 05.02.2011, wherein the Assessing Officer has repeated the said addition on the ground that in the first round of proceedings, Ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the said addition. Now, that the addition stands deleted, therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the present proceedings are deleted.

6.

On perusal of the file, it is seen that assessee has raised certain additional ground, however, at the time of hearing, the additional grounds were not argued or pressed, therefore, same are not adjudicated upon.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 17th February, 2020.

More judgments on Section 40A(3)

All 3,278 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →