Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of Rs. 5,30,96,798/- made by the AO under Section 69 for unexplained investment for AY 2017-18. This addition was based on a valuation report under Section 142A. The CIT(A) had partly upheld a larger unexplained investment, which was further restricted to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in the assessee's parallel appeal.
Held
The Tribunal noted that it had already partly allowed the assessee's appeal (ITA No. 664/Del/2024), thereby restricting the addition for unexplained investment to Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. As a direct consequence, the Revenue's cross appeal seeking to restore the deleted addition was dismissed.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition for unexplained investment under Section 69, which was based on a valuation officer's report under Section 142A.
Sections Cited
Section 143(3), Section 69, Section 142A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh
Asstt. Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Vs Omnibus Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1), Shop No. 3, Plot No. 2, Near Bal Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250001 Mandir School Delhi, Delhi-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCO0534A Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, CA Revenue by : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 22.12.2023 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1059017134(1) 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.
The Revenue pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:
“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition ot the tune of Rs.5,30,96,798/- made by the AO under the head “Unexplained Investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the addition was made on the basis of valuation report submitted by the Valuation Officer under section 142A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2 Omnibus Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.5,30,96,798/- made by the AO by ignoring the facts that the Assessing Officer referred the case to the Valuation Officer for valuation of the property as on 31.03.2017, which was reflected in the balance sheet of the assessee, not as on 31.03.2015 and 31.03.2016.
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition to the tune of Rs.5,30,96,798/- made by the AO by ignoring the facts that during the assessment proceedings, no substantial evidences were made available by the assessee before the AO to bifurcate the investment in different financial years which was otherwise contrary to the facts & figures of value of property in return of income.”
We had heard the Revenue’s instant appeal (cross appeal with assessee’s appeal wherein both of them are aggrieved against CIT(A)/NFAC’s action partly upholding section 69 unexplained investment of Rs.6,61,86,825/- only to the extent of Rs.1,30,90,027/-, leaving the Revenue aggrieved and is in appeal before us. In this factual backdrop, we are of the considered view that once we have partly allowed the assessee’s foregoing appeal restricting the foregoing addition to Rs.1,00,00,000/- only, the Revenue’s instant cross appeal deserves to be dismissed as the necessary corollary. Ordered accordingly.
This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 05/12/2024.