M/S JAIPURIA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P.LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5524/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 February 2020AY 2012-1324 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 6,31,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 4,37,400/-, and Rs. 8,50,000/- were confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) based on detailed reasons provided in the impugned appellate order. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was absent during the hearing. The Revenue's representative relied on the assessment and appellate orders. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed a speaking order on merits and that no material was brought before the Tribunal to persuade it to take a different view. The Tribunal observed that the presumption under Section 132(4A) is rebuttable, but it was the assessee's failure to rebut the presumption that was a finding of fact. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal explicitly clarified that the assessee would be at liberty to approach the ITAT for restoration of the appeal under Proviso to Rule 24 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jaipuria Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the order dated 03.08.2015 passed by the CIT(Appeals)-24, New Delhi, for Assessment Year 2012-13. The appeal challenged the confirmation of additions totaling Rs. 16,18,400/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) by treating certain unrealized sales and amounts as unaccounted sale proceeds or unaccounted sums. The AO's additions were based on documents seized during a search, which allegedly indicated the acceptance of cash for plot/flat bookings that were not accounted for. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue's cross-appeal in ITA No. 5890/Del/2015 was dismissed earlier due to low tax effect. The assessee was absent during the hearing before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 6,31,000/- by treating unrealized sales as unaccounted sale proceeds is legally and factually correct, as per Section 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- by treating an unrealized amount as unaccounted is legally and factually correct, as per Section 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether the addition of Rs. 4,37,400/- by treating unrealized sales as unaccounted sale proceeds is legally and factually correct, as per Section 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Whether the addition of Rs. 8,50,000/- by treating unrealized sales as unaccounted sale proceeds is legally and factually correct, as per Section 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the additions were bad in law and on facts, and the impugned appellate order was arbitrary and illegal. The assessee contended that the presumption under Section 132(4A) is rebuttable and that evidence was led to rebut the said presumption. (Relied on: No specific case law mentioned for the assessee's arguments on rebuttal). Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue relied on the assessment order and the impugned appellate order. The Revenue cited several High Court judgments to support the presumption under Section 132(4A) and the AO's actions based on seized documents, including CIT Vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwala, Mahabir Prasad Runata Vs CIT, Bhagheeratha Engineering Vv: IT, Ashok Kumar Vs CIT, and Baldev Raj Vs CIT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132(4A),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S.SIDHU & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

(A) This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the impugned appellate order dated 03.08.2015 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 24, New Delhi [in short, “Ld. CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :-

1. That on facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts.

(Jaipuria Infrastructure Developments P. Ltd.)

2.

That the Ld. CIT(Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,31,000/- by treating the unrealized sales as unaccounted sale proceeds.

3.

That the Ld. CIT(Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- by treating the unrealized amount as unaccounted. 4. That the Ld. CIT(Appeal) has erred in laqw and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,37,400/- by treating the unrealized sales as unaccounted sale proceeds. 5. That the Ld. CIT(Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,50,000/- by treating the unrealized sales as unaccounted sale proceeds. 6. That the impugned appellate order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles principles of contemporary jurisprudence. 7. That the Appellant craves leave to add/ alter any/ all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal.”

(B) At the time of hearing before us, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Departmental Representative) expressed the possibility that Revenue might have also filed an appeal. We have perused the records; and it is found that appeal of Revenue in has already been dismissed vide order dated 12/09/2019, on (Jaipuria Infrastructure Developments P. Ltd.) account of low tax effect. As the cross appeal filed by Revenue has already been dismissed, we proceed to decide this appeal filed by assessee. The relevant portion of the assessment order dated 28/03/2014 is reproduced as under :-

(Jaipuria Infrastructure Developments P. Ltd.) (Jaipuria Infrastructure Developments P. Ltd.) (Jaipuria Infrastructure Developments P. Ltd.) (Jaipuria Infrastructure Developments P. Ltd.)

(C) On merits, the relevant portion of the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 03/08/2015 of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under :-

(Jaipuria Infrastructure Developments P. Ltd.) (Jaipuria Infrastructure Developments P. Ltd.) (Jaipuria Infrastructure Developments P. Ltd.) (Jaipuria Infrastructure Developments P. Ltd.) (Jaipuria Infrastructure Developments P. Ltd.) (Jaipuria Infrastructure Developments P. Ltd.)

(D) During appellate proceedings in ITAT, written submission were filed by Ld. CIT(DR), relevant portion of which is reproduced as under :

(Jaipuria Infrastructure Developments P. Ltd.) (Jaipuria Infrastructure Developments P. Ltd.) (Jaipuria Infrastructure Developments P. Ltd.) (Jaipuria Infrastructure Developments P. Ltd.) (Jaipuria Infrastructure Developments P. Ltd.) (Jaipuria Infrastructure Developments P. Ltd.) (Jaipuria Infrastructure Developments P. Ltd.) (Jaipuria Infrastructure Developments P. Ltd.) (Jaipuria Infrastructure Developments P. Ltd.)

(E) At the time of hearing, Revenue was represented by Ms. Swati Joshi, Commissioner of Income Tax, Departmental Representative [“Ld. CIT(DR)”, for short]. However, none was present from the assessee’s side. In the absence of any representation from assessee’s side, at the time of hearing before us, we heard the Ld. CIT(DR); who relied upon the assessment order dated 28/03/2014 of Assessing Officer and the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 03/08/2015 of the Ld. CIT(A) and on the aforesaid written submissions referred to in foregoing paragraph (D) of this order. After perusal of the materials on record ; we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed speaking order on merits. Relevant portion of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) has already been reproduced in foregoing paragraph (C) of this order. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given detailed reasons for his decision on merits in the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 03.08.2015 of Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”, for short) no material has been brought for our consideration to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) in the (Jaipuria Infrastructure Developments P. Ltd.) impugned order, on merits. After hearing the Ld. CIT-DR, and after perusal of materials on record, and further, in view of the foregoing discussion, we decline to interfere with the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 03.08.2015 of Ld. CIT(A), and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

(F) Before we part; we explicitly clarify that the assesee will be at liberty to approach ITAT for restoration of the appeal in accordance with Proviso to Rule 24 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal), Rules, 1963. If the assessee does approach ITAT for restoration of the appeals in ITAT, the matter will be considered in accordance with law having regard to the facts and circumstances.

More judgments on Section 132(4A)

All 580 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132(4A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →