ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAY TEL MOBILE PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6469/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 November 2017AY 2010-114 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the property was duly recorded in the assessee's audited accounts and balance sheet, which were filed prior to the search. The Tribunal upheld this deletion, finding no contrary material.

What were the facts?

During a search operation, the AO found a sale deed for land purchased by the assessee for Rs. 3,27,05,000. The AO made an addition for unexplained investment as the assessee allegedly submitted no evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the investment in land was unexplained despite being recorded in audited accounts filed before the search.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “D” : DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. & SHRI O.P. KANT, A.M.

Hearing: 09.11.2017Pronounced: 21.11.2017

ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.

This appeal by Revenue has been directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, New Delhi, dated 1st September, 2014, for the A.Y. 2010-2011, challenging the deletion of addition of Rs.3,27,05,000 made by A.O. on account of unexplained investment for purchase of property at Gurgaon.

2.

Briefly the facts of the case are that search and seizure action under section 132 of the I.T. Act in the case of M/s. Jay

2 ITA.No.6469/Del./2014 M/s. Jay Tel Mobile Private Limited, New Delhi. Polychem India Ltd., and its Associates was initiated on 14th March, 2012. The Directors of the Group and the assessee-company were also covered under the search. Notice under section 153A was issued to the assessee-company and assessee-company filed its return of income declaring NIL income. The A.O. noted that during the course of search operation, some documents were found and seized. They are copy of sale deed executed on 24th December, 2009 between Kawal Singh and Jay Mobile Pvt. Ltd., for sale/purchase of land measuring 31 Kanal 2 Marla at Village Taj Nagar, Tehsil Farrukh Nagar, Dist. Gurgaon for consideration of Rs.3,27,05,000. Assessee- company submitted that transaction is recorded in the books of account but according to A.O. no evidence was submitted to him.

Therefore, the A.O. made the addition of the aforesaid amount.

3.

The assessee-company challenged the addition before the Ld. CIT(A) that the sale deed found during the course of search were duly accounted for in the books of account of the assessee-company which is evident from the copy of the audited accounts i.e., balance sheet and P & L A/c to show that land is shown in the fixed asset schedule and copy of the bank account was also filed to show

3 ITA.No.6469/Del./2014 M/s. Jay Tel Mobile Private Limited, New Delhi. payment have been made through banking channel. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the accounts of assessment year under appeal were already finalized and audited on 06th September, 2009 i.e., prior to the search conducted on 14th March, 2012. The said property is duly reflected in the audited balance sheet of the assessee-company.

Thus, it cannot be concluded that the said property/investment is undisclosed. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that the above investment was duly recorded in the books of account and reflected in the audited balance sheet was filed as part of the departmental record before the date of search. The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly, deleted the addition.

4.

The Ld. D.R. relied upon the order of the A.O. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee-company despite notifying the date of hearing through registered post.

5.

After considering the submissions of the Ld. D.R. in the light of findings of the authorities below, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the matter. The assessee-company submitted before A.O. that transaction has already been recorded in the regular books of account. The Ld. CIT(A) found that audited

4 ITA.No.6469/Del./2014 M/s. Jay Tel Mobile Private Limited, New Delhi. accounts are filed with the return of income prior to the search, in which the above investment has already been shown in the accounts of the assessee-company and disclosed to the Revenue department.

In the absence of any contrary material on record, no interference is called for in the matter. The departmental appeal has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

6.

In the result, departmental appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →