TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shed. Thus, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 5957/DEL/2015 And C.O No. 38/DEL/2016 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2018 - SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR For The Respondent : Sh. R. S. Singhvi, Satyajeet Goel, CAs ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection is filed by the assessee against the order dated 21/8/2015 passed by CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The grounds for appeal are as under:- ITA No. 5957/DEL/2015 1. That the CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 34,06,11,102/- without appreciating that any document has to be relied upon in entirely and the part of it cannot be deemed as true and part as untrue. 2. That the CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 34,06,11,102/- without properly analyzing and considering the contents and words of seized document viz paid, received, refund. To pay, calculation of commission etc. 3. That the CIT (A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s asked to explain as to why an addition of ₹ 34,06,11,102/- should not be made as it represented an unaccounted investment in the purchase of commercial space in Vasant Square Mall as on 1/10/2006 in para 7 of the assessment order, the AO held as under:- 7. The assessee on being served with the said show cause notice requested for supply of copies of seized documents relied upon by the department and also the basis of alleged undisclosed investment of ₹ 34,06,11,102. It was submitted before the AO that no rent had been received from M/s Suncity Project (P) Ltd for the year under consideration and the rent had actually been received from 01.05.2009. It was also requested by the assessee to cause necessary verification u/s 133(6) from M/s Suncity Project (P) Ltd and M/s Pantaloon Retails India Ltd to confirm non-receipt of rent during the year under consideration. It was also contended before the AO that similar proceedings initiated in the case of M/s Suncity Project (P) Ltd had been dropped by Assessing Officer on Central Circle-1. The A.O after considering the assessee s submissions did not agree with the same. The Assessing Officer proceeded to make an add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of Tribunal in respect of relief allowed to assessee and dismissal of appeal of the revenue. The Hon ble Delhi High Court vide consolidated order dtd. 18/05/2017 in ITA 1004 1005/2015 dismissed both the appeals of revenue as per detailed finding on merits. As the order of CIT(A) is based on order of Tribunal confirmed by Hon ble Delhi High Court, there is no merit in appeal of the revenue. Further, assessment order made by the Assessing Officer is factually incorrect and additions were made on illegal and arbitrary basis. The Assessing Officer has not brought on record any details or evidences which could corroborate investment of a sum of ₹ 32,85,37,354/- before 01-10-2006 with M/s. Suncity Project Pvt. Ltd. The entire dispute is with reference to Annexure- A-l which is in the context of purchase of property vide sale deed dtd. 13/05/2009 and AO himself has considered this annexure in A.Y. 2010-11 and made addition to the extent of ₹ 19,02,68,289/-.This document has no relevance to any undisclosed income relating to year under reference. There is thus no case of any income escaping assessment or any tangible material which has relevance to A.Y. 2007-08. Submissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ble Delhi High Court against order of Tribunal in respect of relief allowed to assessee and dismissal of appeal of the revenue. The Hon ble Delhi High Court vide consolidated order dtd. 18/05/2017 dismissed both the appeals of revenue as per detailed finding on merits. As the order of CIT(A) is based on order of Tribunal confirmed by Hon ble Delhi High Court, there is no merit in appeal of the revenue. Further, assessment order made by the Assessing Officer is factually incorrect and additions were made on illegal and arbitrary basis. The Assessing Officer has not brought on record any details or evidences which could corroborate investment of a sum of ₹ 32,85,37,354/- before 01- 10-2006 with M/s. Suncity Project Pvt. Ltd. The entire dispute is with reference to Annexure- A-l page 5 which is in the context of purchase of property vide sale deed dtd. 13/05/2009 and Assessing Officer himself has considered this annexure in A.Y. 2010-11 and made addition to the extent of ₹ 19,02,68,289/-.This document has no relevance to any undisclosed income relating to year under reference. There is thus no case of any income escaping assessment or any tangible material which has rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee on 29/04/2008 pursuant to which Assessing Officer initiated action u/s. 153A of the Act, in the absence of any incriminating material, returned income was accepted vide assessment order u/s. 153A dtd. 29/12/2010. But because of the search in case of Mr. Modi and Annexure -1 found therein, the addition was made in the present case. The entire basis for making the additions to the assessable income of the Assessee was a single document i.e., Annexure A-1. The attempt at making additions on the basis of Annexure A-1, without any further investigation on the above lines, is bound to be rendered unsustainable in law. In the present case, no reason was assigned by the Assessing Officer or any fresh material was taken into account by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. The said action of the Revenue was challenged before the Hon ble High Court and the Hon ble High Court has given a finding of dismissing the appeal of the Revenue therein. The finding of the Hon ble High Court is applicable in the present case and therefore, the action u/s 147 of the Act itself is not maintainable and is quashed. Thus, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
