GREEN VALLEY HOUSING AND LAND DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)- XXXIII, New Delhi dated 17.12.2012 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in rejecting appellant's contention that assessment order made by Assessing Officer was bad in law and void ab-initio on the ground that it ought to have been made u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act, and not, as was done u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act.

2. That without prejudice, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 by the Assessing Officer and in making the assessment in pursuance thereof, without dealing with appellant's objections on merits. 2.1 That the CIT(A) having given a finding that no seized material obtained from the search of BPTP Group of cases (no search having been made on the appellant ) belonged to the appellant, clearly erred in yet upholding the action u/s 147 taken in the hands of the appellant based on such seized material.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in holding to quote, 'that seized documents definitely proves that interest is paid on PDC' despite- Page | 1 i. that the seized record on the basis of which above finding was given, even according to his own finding by the CIT(A), did not belong to the appellant and, ii. that no enquiries were made from any of the alleged recipients of the interest and none was confronted with relevant document(s). 3.1 That the finding of the CIT(A) is based on mere surmises and conjectures without proof and corroboration by independent evidence. 3.2 That without prejudice the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of interest for the period for which PDC's were extended. 3.3 That without prejudice the CIT(A) erred in not quantifying the addition and instead giving ambiguous directions to compute the interest after six months from the date of sale.

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in not accepting the appellant's contention that Additional Payments having not been claimed as deduction by appellant, no disallowance could have been made in the hands of the appellant. 4.1 That without prejudice the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Additional Payments made to the recipients who were not the owners of land and to the payment made in cash. 4.2 That without prejudice the CIT(A) erred in not himself quantifying the addition to be made. 4.3 That without prejudice the CIT(A) did not deal with the following specific ground No.4.1:- "4.1. Without prejudice, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in making an addition of Rs.49,46,439/- on account of additional payments as recorded in books of account of appellant company as against amount of Rs.24,14,269/- paid on account of additional payment and recorded in books of accounts."

5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance u/s 40A(3) in respect of which no deduction was claimed by the appellant. 5.1 That even on merits the disallowance was not justified.