PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. SUMAN AGGARWAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/86/2022HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01014633202211 April 2023Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that since additions made in the hands of the seller (Kulwinder Singh) for the same land purchase were deleted and confirmed by the High Court, no additions could be sustained in the hands of the purchaser (assessee). The revenue could not cite any contrary judgment.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the ITAT's dismissal of its appeal, which had upheld the deletion of an addition of Rs. 3,91,71,875/- made under Section 69B. The addition was made to the assessee's income related to a land purchase.

What were the issues?

Whether the deletion of addition under Section 69B was correct when the seized document indicated a higher rate than the registered sale deed, and if relief was rightly allowed to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-86-2022 (O&M) 1 2023:PHHC:049463-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 240 ITA-86-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.04.2023 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar ..... Appellant Versus Suman Aggarwal ..... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel for the Income-Tax/appellant. **** RITU BAHRI,

1.

The revenue has come up with an appeal against the order dated 14.07.2021 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, whereby the appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated 08.12.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana, has been dismissed, with respect to the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana has deleted the addition of Rs. 3,91,71,875/- made under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the content of the seized document. 3. The following questions were raised by the revenue : SATYAWAN 2023.05.02 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-86-2022 (O&M) 2 2023:PHHC:049463-DB 1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) is correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,91,71,875/- made under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the content of the seized document. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) is right in allowing relief to the assessee when seized document clearly indicates that the rate recorded in the registered sale deed was much lower than the rate mentioned in the agreement seized. 3. The appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal on or before is heard and disposed off.” 4. In the present case, the respondent-assessee had purchased the land measuring 3Ks-7Ms from M/s Punjab Iron and Steel Company, Jalandhar through Sh. Kulwinder Singh. The Tribunal has referred to a judgment (Annexure A-4) passed by Division Bench of this Court in ITA- 101-2017 (O&M) titled The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana vs. Kulwinder Singh, 425-Mota Singh Nagar, Jalandhar decided on 28.03.2019. Kulwinder Singh has purchased land from M/s PISCO and the additions made in the hands of Kulwinder Singh after purchasing the land from M/s PISCO were deleted by the Tribunal and this finding of the Tribunal was confirmed by the High Court. The Appellate Tribunal in the present case by passing the order Annexure A-3 dated 14.07.2021 has held that once the additions in the lands of Kulwinder Singh (seller) had been deleted, there was no reason for upholding the same in favour of the purchaser (the assessee in this case) i.e. Suman Aggarwal. 5. The counsel for the appellant has not been able to cite any judgment, which has taken a contrary view against the Division Bench judgment passed by this Court (Annexure A-4) Kulwinder Singh case (supra). Since the judgment (Annexure A-4) Kulwinder Singh case (supra) SATYAWAN 2023.05.02 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-86-2022 (O&M) 3 2023:PHHC:049463-DB has attained finality, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. 6. Dismissed. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE

(MANISHA BATRA)

JUDGE 11.04.2023

Satyawan 1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No 2. Whether reportable: Yes/No SATYAWAN 2023.05.02 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 69B

All 1,579 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →