DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SOHNA TECHNOBUILD PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6381/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 February 2025AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments (AY 2012-13 and 2009-10), any addition must be based on seized material, as per the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue's counsel could not pinpoint any such incriminating material for the AY 2012-13 addition. Therefore, the Revenue's grounds for these years were found to be without merit and were rejected. For the abated assessment (AY 2013-14), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order clearly indicated that the assessee had provided all the necessary details regarding agricultural lands and produce before the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the Revenue's ground for this year was also found to be without merit and rejected. The Tribunal found no merit in any of the Revenue's appeals.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Revenue against the orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2012-13, 2009-10, and 2013-14. These orders were passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, following searches conducted on March 14, 2014. The primary dispute concerned the disallowance/addition of the assessee's claim for agricultural income exemption under section 10(1). For AY 2012-13, the addition was Rs. 2.28 lakhs. The Revenue contended that for 'unabated' assessments, additions must be based on seized material, and for 'abated' assessments, the assessee must prove all relevant details. The CIT(A) had deleted the additions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of agricultural income amounting to Rs. 2.28 lakhs for assessment year 2012-13, an unabated assessment, is sustainable without incriminating seized material, in light of the judgment in PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC)? - Assessee's contention: Not recorded. - Revenue's contention: The addition should be sustained as per the Assessing Officer's action. 2. Whether the addition of agricultural income for assessment year 2009-10, an unabated assessment, is sustainable without incriminating seized material? - Assessee's contention: Not recorded. - Revenue's contention: The addition should be sustained as per the Assessing Officer's action. 3. Whether the addition of agricultural income for assessment year 2013-14, an abated assessment, is sustainable when the assessee had not proved all relevant details of agricultural lands and produce? - Assessee's contention: The assessee had duly placed on record all relevant details before the Assessing Officer. - Revenue's contention: The addition should be sustained as the assessee failed to prove the details.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(1),Section 153A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 02.06.2025Pronounced: 02.06.2025

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM These Revenue’s three appeals 6378 & 6382/Del/2018 for assessment years 2012-13, 2009-10 and 2013- 14 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s orders, all dated 31.07.2018 passed in cases no. 88/17-18/421/16-17; 95/17-18/419/16-17 and 89/17-18/422/16-17, involving proceedings under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2.

Coming to the Revenue’s “lead” appeal the department’s sole substantive grievance raised herein seeks to revive the Assessing Officer’s action disallowing/adding the assessee’s claim of section 10(1) exemption of his agricultural income amounting to Rs.2.28 lakhs, in the course of scrutiny assessment framed on 27.12.2016 u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, a perusal of the instant case file indicates that the departmental authorities had carried out the search in question on 14.03.2014; and, therefore, the impugned assessment year 2012-13 involves an “unabated” assessment wherein any 2 | P a g e corresponding addition has to be made based on the seized material only in light of PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC). Learned CIT(DR) could not pinpoint any such incriminating material pertaining to the impugned addition during the course of hearing before us. We thus find no merit in the Revenue’s instant sole substantive ground which is hereby rejected in the foregoing terms. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

3.

Same order to follow in the Revenue’s second appeal raising the very issues and involving “unabated” assessment. Rejected accordingly.

More judgments on Section 10(1)

All 394 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →