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

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.)

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.

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 :-

(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.

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