TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 47,02,750/- made by the Assessing Officer has rightly been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, we uphold the same and decide the issue against the Revenue - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1019/DEL/2012 - - - Dated:- 11-6-2015 - H S Sidhu, JM And J S Reddy, AM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Sanjay Prasad, CIT (DR) For the Respondent : Shri Adesh Jain Akshat Jain, CA S ORDER Per H. S. Sidhu, JM Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order dated 10.6.2015 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), III, Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2007-08 on the following grounds:- 1. On the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the notice. The assessee did not file its return of income within the time stipulated in the notice u/s. 153C. The return of income was filed on 13.9.2010 declaring total income at ₹ 15,280/- Delay in filing of return of income was more than two months. Earlier assessee had filed his original return of income declaring same income. Subsequently notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 14.9.2010 was issued and served upon the assessee. Previously, notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 28.7.2010 along with the questionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee. Thereafter, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has been requested to furnish the details as requested vide notice u/.s 142(1) of the Act. In response to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h proceedings u/s. 153C, certain papers annexurized as Page No. 47 of Annexure A-1 was found. On this paper, details of expenses and payment of share premium is mentioned. The AO contended that since the Directors of the assessee company has accepted the payment and receipt of Premium mentioned in Annexure A-1 of the seized documents therefore the amount of expenses mentioned on Page NO. 47 of Annexure A-I is also correct. The AO further contended that during the period under consideration construction of two properties i.e. Hotel Motia Khan property of the assessee company and Hotel project in Mehrauli in the name of M/s Penguine Farms Pvt. Ltd. was in progress. These lands were purchased in assessment year 2006-07 and assessment year 2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having the Settlement Commission Order and finding given therein but then now as the Order of the Settlement Commission has already been passed upon consideration of the entire issues and having considered the addition to income with respect to the concerned properties in respect of the assessee group, therefore in terms of Section 245-I of the Act the additions made in the assessment order are rightly been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). In this connection, Ld. CIT(A) has referred the relevant portion of Settlement Commission's Order where a specific finding with reference to which the addition has been made. The relevant portion of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- The issue of unexplained and unaccounted expenses on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made when the shares were actually transferred. In the light of explanation given by the applicant no interference is being made. 8.2 Keeping in view of the above, it is clear that the Settlement Commission has not made any further addition in respect to the Property at Motia Khan, Karol Bagh. The Settlement Commission has however made an addition of ₹ 5 crores in the hands of both Pradeep Aggarwal Group and Dinesh Jain group on account of unexplained transactions (recorded on loose papers which includes page 47 of Annexure A-I) in respect of the properties brought before the Settlement Commission and hence any further addition made by the Assessing Officer would result in a case of double addition. 8.3 In this connection, Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
