Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “D” : DELHI
Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI R.K. PANDA
For Revenue : Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-D.R. For Assessee: -None- Date of Hearing : 29.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 01.08.2019 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.
This appeal by Revenue has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi, Dated 18.12.2015, for the A.Y. 2008-2009, on the following grounds :
“The order of Ld. C1T(A) is not correct in law and facts.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A)
2 ITA.No.1133/Del./2016 Smt. Anju Gupta, New Delhi. has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,43,27,886/- made by the AO on account of re- computation of capital gain by substituting the sale value with market value.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.10,55,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investment u/s 69”.
Briefly the facts of the case are that a Search & seizure operation under section 132 of the Income tax Act, 1961 was carried on the assessee on 28.10.2010. The assessee belongs to the Satya Parkash Bros group of cases which was covered under the search action. Assessment order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 was passed on 28.03.2013 in the assessee’s case making the above two additions and income was assessed at Rs.1.58 crores.
The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee pleaded that issue of notice
3 ITA.No.1133/Del./2016 Smt. Anju Gupta, New Delhi. under section 153A of the I.T. Act is without proper assumption of jurisdiction and the consequential order passed under section 143(3) is illegal and liable to be quashed. The additions on merit were also challenged. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that assessee is a part-owner of a property at 17A/61 WEA, Karol Bagh, Delhi and part-owner of 17A/60 WEA, Karol Bagh, Delhi. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2008-09, both these properties have been sold. The assessing officer noticed that two other individuals of the S.P. Gupta family viz., Sh. S.P. Gupta and Smt. Abha Gupta had also sold properties during the assessment years 2006-07 and 2008-09 respectively wherein seized documents show receipt of unaccounted cash consideration by them. The A.O. after going through the circle rates applicable to Delhi and after looking up the market rates of properties sold by the assessee at different websites in public domain, held that the value shown by the assessee is much lower than the prevalent market value of the property. The A.O. further found out the circle rate for stamp duty purposes as on 01.01.2012. The 4 ITA.No.1133/Del./2016 Smt. Anju Gupta, New Delhi. A.O. assumed an average guaranteed appreciation in property of 12% p.a. and worked out the fair market value. The A.O. accordingly made additions being difference of fair market value so arrived at by him and declared sale price and made the additions as undisclosed receipts in the hands of the assessee.
The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that the additions made on three incorrect assumption of facts which do not exist. It was submitted that issue is covered by the Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla [2015] 61 taxmann.com 412 (Delhi) in which it was held that “addition which is not based on any incriminating document pertaining to the assessee has no legs to stand on”. The assessee also relied on the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in the case of M/s Satya Realtors Pvt. Ltd. belonging to the same group in which similar additions have been deleted. The Ld. CIT(A) found that there is no incriminating document relating to the assessee which have been seized by 5 ITA.No.1133/Del./2016 Smt. Anju Gupta, New Delhi. the department during the course of search and seizure action. Therefore, issue is covered by the Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra). All additions were, therefore, deleted following the same decision. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that even if assuming that seized incriminating documents seized in the case of Shri S.P. Gupta and Smt. Abha Gupta can be deemed to be incriminating material, but, the issue is however covered by Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Laxman Das Bhatia ITA.Nos.1731, 1733, 1734 of 2010 Dated 07.08.2012. It was also noted that there is no nexus between the transaction of sale by the assessee and transaction of sales made by Shri S.P. Gupta and Smt. Abha Gupta. Therefore, additions are liable to be deleted. The Ld. CIT(A) even on merits deleted the additions.
The Ld. D.R. merely relied upon the Order of the A.O. and have stated that issue may be covered by the 6 ITA.No.1133/Del./2016 Smt. Anju Gupta, New Delhi. Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra).
After considering the submissions of the Ld. D.R, we are of the view that no interference is required in the matter. It is an admitted fact that no incriminating material was found during the course of survey so as to make the additions against the assessee. The Revenue has not raised any ground that the issue is not covered by the Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra). In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the departmental appeal and the same is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the Department dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court.