PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

The Principal Commissioner impugns the order dated 23 February 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”] and has proposed the following questions of law for our consideration: “A. Whether on the facts and under the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT is justified in upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.28,61,269/- made on account of ALV of the properties claimed to have been used for own business purposes by the assessee, without considering the fact that such properties were shown as stock- in-trade by the assessee and hence were required to be considered for assessing ALV? B. Whether on the facts and under the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT is justified in upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.45,56,555/- made on account of 5% increase in ALV of the properties, without This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2024 at 11:48:53

Insofar as the issue of unutilized inventory in the shape of flats being used by the assessee for its own business purposes, the ITAT has found the same would not even fall within the ambit of Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”]. The aforesaid position in law could not be disputed before us. 3. The ITAT has also upheld the view expressed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] insofar as the increase in the notional Annual Letting Value [“ALV”] by 5% was concerned bearing in mind the undisputed position which appears and emerges from the record and of the same not being based on any comparable or for that matter any other cogent or material evidence. 4. That only leaves us to deal with the issues pertaining to Section 14A of the Act read alongside Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [“Rules”]. The ITAT has come to record a categorical finding that the assessee had sufficient funds of its own and thus the view as taken by the Assessing Officer was clearly unjustified. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/05/2024 at 11:48:53

On an overall conspectus of the aforesaid, we find that the appeal fails to raise any substantial question of law. It shall, consequently, stand dismissed.