Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 24.01.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 10, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2010-11.
Brief facts of the case as culled out from the material on record are as under :-
Assessee is an individual who had originally filed her return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 31.07.2010 declaring total income at Rs.7,90,930/- which was initially processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act which was served on the assessee. Consequently, assessment was framed
ACIT Vs. Beena Aggarwal 2 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act vide order dated 07.12.2017 and the total income was determined at Rs.10,59,90,930/-.
Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 24.01.2019 in Appeal No.186/2017-18 granted substantial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “That, in facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs.10,52,00,000/- made on account of undisclosed capital gain.
2. That, in facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs.10,52,00,000/- ignoring the fact that documents in question were seized during the course of search action u/s 132 from residence of Shri Naresh Gupta, who is deed writer.
3. That, in facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs.10,52,00,000/- ignoring fact that parties involved, property under reference and cheque received by assessee for sale of property were same as those found recorded in agreement to sale found in computer hard disk seized from Shri Naresh Gupta during search action u/s 132.
4. The appellant craves, leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of appeal. It is prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A)-10, New Delhi being contrary to the facts on record and settled position of law, be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.”
5. Before us, at the outset, both the parties submitted that though Revenue has raised various grounds but the sole controversy is with respect to the addition of Rs.10,52,00,000/- made by AO but deleted by CIT(A).
ACIT Vs. Beena Aggarwal 3 6. AO in the assessment order has noted that the office of the ACIT, Central Circle – 26, New Delhi had informed that during the course of search action dated 11.09.2013 in the AKN Group of cases, certain transactions relating to payment for purchase of land had come to light. It was noted that assessee had sold a property (16 Bigas and 18 biswas) to Shri Babu Ram for Rs.12.50 crore and out of the aforesaid consideration Rs.1.15 crore was received in cash by her. AO has noted that the perusal of sale deed executed on 28.01.2010 revealed that the description of property transferred was same as per the information passed by ACIT, Central Circle. He further noted that in the Income-tax return filed by assessee for A.Y. 2010-11, there was no entry available in capital gain schedule. AO, therefore, held that assessee had received Rs.12.5 crore as sale consideration which included Rs.1.15 crore in cash which had remained unexplained. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee was asked to explain the consideration received on sale of property and in response to which the submissions were made by the assessee. It was inter alia submitted that she did not receive any cash. Before AO, it was also submitted by assessee that though Shri Babu Ram wanted to purchase the entire 2 bigha 12 biswas of land but the land was sold to three different entities, namely; PBR Developers Pvt. Ltd., Smt. Maya Devi and Shri Babu Ram. It was further submitted that the three parties to whom the land have been sold are unrelated parties. The submissions of the assessee was not found acceptable to AO. AO noted that Shri Babu Ram was one of the Directors of PBR Developers Pvt. Ltd. and purchase of property was indeed made by Babu Ram and the parties were not unrelated as claimed by assessee. AO also noted that assessee could not produce the party before him. AO,
ACIT Vs. Beena Aggarwal 4 therefore, for the reasons noted in the order computed Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.10,52,00,000/- and made its addition.
Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). Before CIT(A), assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment and also the addition made on merits. CIT(A) for the reasons noted in the order upheld the reopening of the assessment but on the merits of the addition, he deleted the addition. The reasoning of CIT(A) for deleting the addition was that AO had made the addition on the basis of an undated and unsigned sale agreement found in hard disk seized from the residential premises of Shri Naresh Gupta during the course of search and seizure operation without any corroborative evidence. He held that unsigned, undated and unregistered document seized from 3rd party’s place has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law more so when finally the property was not transferred on the basis of any such agreement to sell but was transferred on the basis of registered sale deeds which was executed on 28.01.2010 or 03.02.2010 respectively. He has further noted that the sale price of immovable property as per the registered sale deeds have been accepted by the Department and there have been no further proceedings in the case of buyers of the property. He has further noted that AO was asked by CIT(A) to verify whether any action taken by Department in the case of the buyer of the property and AO was also telephonically reminded but there was no response from the AO. He accordingly held that no addition could be made on the basis of unregistered, undated and unsigned alleged draft agreement. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now before Tribunal.
ACIT Vs. Beena Aggarwal 5 8. Before us, Learned DR took us through the findings of AO and supported the order of AO.
Learned AR on the other hand reiterated the submissions made before lower authorities and supported the orders of CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present grounds is with respect to the addition of Rs.10.52 crore made by AO but deleted by CIT(A). We find that CIT(A) while deleting the addition has given a finding that addition has been made by AO on the basis of undated, unsigned and unregistered draft agreement that was seized from the hard disk of Shri Naresh Gupta during the course of search and seizure operation and without any contrary evidence. He had further given a finding that the property has not been transferred on the basis of the unsigned sale agreement found from the hard disk of Naresh Gupta but was transferred on the basis of registered sale deeds which was executed on 28.01.2010 or 03.02.2010. He has further noted that during the appellate proceedings before him, the AO was asked to verify as to whether the addition have been made in the case of buyers of the property or any other proceedings being initiated in the case of buyers. He has noted that no response was received from AO meaning thereby that value of purchase of property in the case of buyer have been accepted by Revenue. Before us, Revenue has not pointed to any fallacy in the finding or reasoning of CIT(A). We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed.
ACIT Vs. Beena Aggarwal 6 11. In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.06.2023