Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.P.TOLANI, HON’BLE & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
Revenue by : Sh. HK Chadhury, CIT DR Assessee by: Sh. Mukesh Rana, AR Date of Hearing 05/06/2017 Date of pronouncement 06/06/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A)-1, New Delhi dated 07.01.2013 for the Assessment Year 2007-08 raising following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order of the ld CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 35800000/- on account of unexplained investment made in land by the assessee without appreciating the fact that addition was made on the basis of material seized during the course of search.”
2. The assessee preferred cross objection in the same appeal raising following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 35800000/- on account of unexplained investments and decided the case in favour of the assessee. The learned assessing officer appealed the order of learned CIT(Appeals) with Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal.
2. The appellant, respectfully submits as follows:-
Page 2 of 4 a. That the land which is called as unexplained investment does not exist as explained in proceeding with learned Assessing Officer and learned CIT(A) and this addition was merely made on the basis of dumb document which does not hold any date of signature. b. That the search and seizure was conducted in regards to Mr. Suresh Nanda Group and assessee was a junior level staff in one of his companies. The statement of assessee during the search and seizure was recorded where it was very clearly stated by the assessee that he was trying to find a property for Mr. Suresh Nanda on his instruction and no investigation was done by the learned Assessing Officer to find out does such property in real exist or not Assessing Office shall had made this addition in account of Mr. Suresh Nanda as search and seizure was conducted under his company/ group name. The ld assessing officer never addressed the fact that this document neither written by assessee or his family members. c. That if any of such property exist why the same was not located and attached by the learned assessing officer for recovery of tax, it proves the fact that learned assessing officer made surmise on the basis of one loose paper seized during search and seizure and no supporting fact or document to support this addition by the Assessing Officer.
3. That appellant, therefore prays that the ld Assistant Commissioner of Income tax may be directed to modify the assessment accordingly and to give effect of the order of ld CIT(A).”
In the present case against the order of the ld CIT(A) 07.01.2013 the assessee preferred an appeal before the coordinate bench vide for AY 2007-08. This appeal was disposed off by ITAT vide order dated 27.01.2015 wherein, the ITAT restored the matter back to the file of ld Assessing Officer for afresh de novo adjudication. Inadvertently, at that particular time the appeal filed by the revenue in the impugned CO of the assessee No. 64/Del/2013 for Assessment Year 2007-08 was not brought to the notice of the bench either by the revenue or by the assessee. Therefore, the coordinate bench could not adjudicate this appeal at the time of disposal of the appeal of the assessee for the same assessment year against the same order of the ld CIT(A). Now the appeal of the Revenue as well as the CO of the assessee is fixed for hearing before us.
The ld AR submitted the copy of the order of the coordinate bench dated 27.01.2015 as well as submitted copy of ITA No. 6026/Del/2016 of the Revenue for AY 2007-08 wherein, identical grounds of appeal
are raised. Therefore, he submitted that the above appeal of the revenue as well as the CO of the assessee has become infractuous.
5. The ld DR also perused the relevant grounds of appeal of ITA No. 6026/Del/2016 and ITA No. 1909/Del/2013. He also confirmed the similarity of the grounds for the same assessment year.