DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25 , NEW DELHI, DELHI V. AMITY INFOTECH PVT LTD, DELHI

ITA 967/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the DCIT, Central Circle 25 against Amity Infotech Pvt. Ltd., concerning the Assessment Year 2012-13. The primary issue was the deletion of an addition of Rs. 40,00,00,000 by the CIT(A), which was initially made by the AO based on incriminating materials found during a search operation. These materials included a hard disk with an Excel sheet detailing cash payments and MoU documents. The AO argued that these documents indicated unexplained cash investments. However, the CIT(A) found that the transactions were not conducted in the relevant financial year, leading to the deletion of the addition. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the AO had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126942 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAVED AKHTAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SALIL AGARWAL

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.967/DEL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) DCIT, Central Circle 25, vs. Amity Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 24, Ashoka Chambers, 5B, Pusa Road, Rajinder Park, New Delhi – 110 060. (PAN : AACCA7031N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate Shri Shailesh Gupta, CA Shri Madhur Agarwal, Advocate Shri Mahir Agarwal, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 15.04.2025 Date of Order : 23.04.2025 ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Delhi-28 [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 22.12.2023 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 raising following grounds of appeal :- “1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the addition on account of 2 ITA No.967/DEL/2024 unexplained cash investment of Rs.40,00,00,000/- without appreciating the fact that incriminating material in the form of hard disk in which details of certain properties maintained in excel sheet have been found in which details of various cash payment mentioned was found during the course of search on assessee. 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) is legally justified in deleting the addition on account of unexplained cash investment of Rs.40,00,00,000/- without appreciating the fact that incriminating material in form of MoU documents in which memorandum of understanding (MOU) is entered into on 28.03.2012 (twenty eighth day of March 2012) i.e. during F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13. 3. The order of Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. 4. The grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.” 2. At the time of hearing, ld. DR of the Revenue brought to our notice para 7 of the assessment order and submitted, during search, it was found that assessee has made payment in cash of Rs.40 crores for purchase of land from undisclosed source of income. The above details were found in the hard-disk in which the MOU was also found indicating the abovesaid transaction which is nothing but incriminating material in the form of MOU documents which were found during the search. He submitted that AO has brought on record relevant incriminating material leading to justification of making the addition. Further he brought to our notice page 18 of the appellate order in particular para 5.3.1 of the order wherein he gave relief based on the finding that the seized excel sheet which gave 3 ITA No.967/DEL/2024 the details of the column ‘paid’ as blank and in the column ‘balance’, the complete amount of Rs.60 crores is mentioned as payable. The seized excel sheet mentioned the date as 05.04.2012, it was held that no transactions were done in the relevant FY i.e. FY 2011-12. Ld. CIT(A) accepted the submissions of the assessee during appellate proceedings that as per the audited balance sheet, the assessee has not paid any money either through cheque or cash during the relevant financial year and has also not purchased any land at Sanad during the FY 2011-12. Therefore, during the appellate proceedings, ld. CIT(A) observed that AO has not brought any corroborative evidence during the search or whether any property at Sanad was purchased by the assessee during the relevant FY during assessment proceedings. Based on the above information, he deleted the addition made by the AO in the impugned AY 2012-13. He heavily relied on the findings of the AO and prayed that the incriminating material found in the form of MOU documents during the search and based on that, additions made by the AO also be sustained. 3. On the other hand, ld. AR of the assessee heavily relied on the findings of the ld. CIT (A) and submitted that the informations found during search as well as MOU clearly demonstrates that assessee has not made any payment during the current AY and AO was not justified in making the addition during current assessment year. He submitted that when it was 4 ITA No.967/DEL/2024 clearly established that no payments were made during the assessment year under consideration, no addition can be made. 4. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that during search proceedings, certain documents were impounded which included MOU documents in the form of hard-disk entered by the assessee during the FY 2011-12. Even though, these informations were found during the search and the same document clearly indicated that assessee has not made any payment during the impugned financial year for purchase of any land. It clearly indicated that no financial transactions were carried out by the assessee during the current financial year. Therefore, ld. CIT (A) has given a clear finding that no transactions of cash payments or cheque payments were made by the assessee during the financial year. Therefore, there is no material with the AO to propose the addition made in this assessment year. Therefore, we do not see any reason to disturb the findings of ld. CIT (A) and accordingly, the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 23rd day of April, 2025. Sd/- sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 23.04.2025 TS 5 ITA No.967/DEL/2024 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals). 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "