TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smiss the Appeal filed by the Revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 3237/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 1-8-2016 - Shri H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri Anadi N. Mishra, Accountant Member Department by : Ms. Deepika Mittal, CIT(DR) Assessee by : S h . Rajesh Jain, CA ORDER Per H. S. Sidhu, JM The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 20/2/2013 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-XXXIII), New Delhi on the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of surrender made by the assessee under section 132(4) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 4.0 crores in the assessment year 2009-10 on account of WIP and declared in the return of income accordingly. 5. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any / all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. 2. The facts in brief are that a search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) was conducted by the Department on 30.7.2009 in Ramprastha Group of cases. The assessee company M/s Mahamaya General Finance Co (P) Ltd., business premises of 4/4A, Stock Exchange Building, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110 002 which was also covered u/s. 132(1) of the Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. 4. Now the Revenue is aggrieved against the impugned order and filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised by the Revenue in the grounds and requested that addition made by the AO may be upheld. 6. On the contrary, Ld. A.R. of the assessee relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A) and stated that the same may be upheld and appeal of the Revenue may be dismissed. He also draw our attention towards the ITAT Delhi Bench F order dated 16.2.2016 passed in the case of DCIT vs. Ramaprastha Builders Pvt. Ltd.; DCIT vs. Ramprastha Greens (P) Ltd. and DCIT vs. Ramparasthan Promoters Developers Pvt. Ltd. passed in ITA No. 3238/Del/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the circumstances that various contractor of Ramprastha Group were surveyed simultaneously and no document of unrecorded receipts were found and no addition was made in the hands of contractors on this issue. This factor is very important when entire construction is done through contractors. Therefore, I agree with the Ld. AR that entire addition is made on the basis of statement uls 132(4) of Sh. Balwant Singh. I have considered the contents of statement under Section 132(4) of Sh. Balwant Singh. He has made disclosure of additional income on behalf of various companies of Ramprastha Group and other persons. The substantive part of answer, Sh. Balwant Singh has stated that mostly the transactions are recorded in books of accounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R, in my view, the addition based on statement alone that too based on mistaken facts and retracted cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition made on account of unaccounted receipts is hereby deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed. 7.1 We find considerable cogency in the Assessee s AR contention that the issue in dispute is also covered by the ITAT Delhi Bench F order dated 16.2.2016 in the group cases of DCIT vs. Ramaprastha Builders Pvt. Ltd.; DCIT vs. Ramprastha Greens (P) Ltd. and DCIT vs. Ramparasthan Promoters Developers Pvt. Ltd. passed in ITA No. 3238/Del/2013 (AY 2010-11); 3239/Del/2013; 3240 4341/Del/2013 (AY 2010-11 2009-10) respectively in identical facts. 7.2 After going through the findings of the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
