AKSHAT BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , DEHRADUN

& 3945/Del/2016 (for AYs: 2011-12 & 2012-13) arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Muzaffarnagar’s common order dated 30.03.2016 in case nos. 340 & 345/CIT(A)-1/DDN/14-15 in volving proceedings under section 153A(1)(b) r.w.s. 143(3); and, & 116/DDN/2019 (for ITA Nos.3944 & 3945/Del/2016 & 116/DDN/2016 AYs: 2010-11 & 2012-13) are directed against the CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur’s orders, both dated 22.05.2019 in case nos. CIT(A)- IV/KNP/10043/DCIT-CC/DDN/2018-19/111 and CIT(A)- IV/KNP/10050/DCIT-CC/DDN/2018-19/112 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); respectively.

Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

We come to the “lead” assessment year 2010-11 herein involving the assessee’s penalty appeal wherein both the learned lower authorities have held him to have concealed and furnished inaccurate particulars of income representing on-money amounting to Rs.16.40 lakhs, in land transactions thereby levying “minimum penalty” of Rs.5,06,760/-, in question.

The Revenue vehemently contends in light of the Assessing Officer’s section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) assessment dated 01.09.2014 that the learned lower authorities had carried out a search at the assessee’s business and residential premises on 26.04.2012 followed by their detailed post search inquiries thereby unearthing

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions. We make it clear first of all that the assessment year before us is AY 2010- 11 and the “search” in question had taken place on 26.04.2012. Meaning thereby, that we are dealing with an “unabated” assessment as on the date of search, and, therefore, no addition could be made, except that based on the corresponding specific seized material in light of PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212. We find in this backdrop that apart from post search enquiries, there is no seized material quoted in the assessment order indicating on-money payment involved in the asseessee’s land transactions. We accordingly are of the considered view that once the corresponding question additions of on-money itself become a debatable issue as per subsequent legal developments, the consequential penalty couldn’t be upheld. We order accordingly. The assessee succeeds in his sole substantive ground in the instant penalty appeal .

The assessee’s next twin quantum appeals & 3945/Del/2016 challenge both the learned lower authorities’ action invoking section 50C of the Act for the purpose of computing his capital gains based on the circle/stamp rates of his lands/capital asset which were sold/transferred in financial year 2011-12 and 2012-13; involving varying sums, respectively.

Learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that no reference to the DVO had been made in either of the twin lower proceedings under section 50C(2) of the Act before recomputing the assessee’s capital gains herein.

Mr. Chaterjee vehemently argues that the assessee had not raised any such objection either before the Assessing Officer or in the lower appellate proceedings. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant technical objections in light of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 85 (Kol) wherein their lordships have settled the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department that such a reference is indeed mandatory, even if there is no objection raised from the former’s side. We, accordingly, accept the assessee’s instant twin appeals raising this identical sole substantive grievance in principle and restore the matter back to the learned