Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue's appeal for AY 2006-07 challenges the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of Rs. 3,38,72,500/- made by the AO on account of alleged unexplained payments. This addition was based on a search/survey and a statement recorded from an association's secretary.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had reversed the addition because the issue was already decided in the assessee's favor in previous orders. The Tribunal found no distinction in facts or law from prior connected matters where similar additions were held to be unsubstantiated.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,38,72,500/- on account of unexplained payments, ignoring the AO's efforts.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024–25/1069994543(1) dated 28.10.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
This Revenue’s appeal raises the following substantive grounds: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,38,72,500/- on account of unexplained payments ignoring the efforts made by the AO seeking a National Industrial Corporation Pvt. Ltd. comprehensive list of questions from the assessee as Sh. R K Miglani expressed his inability to appear in person. 2. That the department craves to add or amend the grounds of appeal
before Hon’ble ITAT is finally heard or disposed of.”
4. We next note with the able assistance coming from both the parities that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition of Rs.3,38,72,500/- in the assessee’s hands in his assessment order as representing it’s alleged unexplained payments based on a search/survey action conducted on the premises of M/s Radico Khaitan and statement recorded from Mr. R. K. Miglani (General Secretary of Uttar Pradesh Distillery Association). Learned CIT(A) has admittedly reversed the same for the sole reason that the very issue stands decided in the assessee’s favour and against the department.
5. That being the case, learned counsel has invited our attention to the tribunal’s common order dated 14.12.2018 in the assessee’s and the other connected matters duly concluding therein the impugned addition is neither based on any seized material nor did it stand corroborated by the learned departmental authorities all along. The Revenue is indeed very fair during the course of hearing before us in not pin-pointing on any distinction on facts and law in all these cases, so as to adopt a different approach in the assessee’s case in the impugned assessment year. We thus uphold the learned
6. No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.