DEVENDRA KUMAR JHA,DELHI V. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

ITA 2054/DEL/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471623 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDER PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RANJAN CHOPRA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Principle of natural justice; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member ITA No. 2054/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Devendra Kumar Jha, 211, West Guru Angad Nagar, Gali No. 10, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi-110092 Vs ACIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi-110055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AGNPJ8709N Assessee by : Sh. Ranjan Chopra, CA Revenue by : Sh. Surender Pal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 27.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 27.02.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)-26, New Delhi’s in case No. 10539/2018-19 dated 30.06.2022, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: “Ground 1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and facts while confirming the order of Ld. AO without giving passing any speaking order which is bad in law. ITA No. 2054/Del/2022 Devendra Kumar Jha 2 Ground 2. The CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not allowing the revised grounds of appeal duly signed by AR on the ground that the same has not been signed by the appellant is bad in law. Ground 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not allowing the additional evidence submitted during appellate proceedings as per income tax rules is bad in law and against the principle of natural justice. Ground 4. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 60,00,000 on account of Gold Bar found by Enforcement Directorate (ED) subsequent to Search. Ground 5. Without prejudice to Ground no. 4, The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the order of Ld AO by valuing the Gold Bar at Rs. 60,00,000 instead of prevailing market price of Gold based on Valuation Report of ED. Ground 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of Jewellery (2 Gold Coins) amounting to Rs. 51,620 without any reason. Ground 7. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of Cash found during search amounting to Rs. 2,89,500 without any reason.” 4. Learned counsel first of all submits that the assessee does not wish to press for his 6th & 7th substantive grounds keeping in mind smallness of amounts involved therein. Rejected accordingly. 5. We are now left with the sole quantum issue of addition of Rs.60,00,000/- added in the assessee’s hands as valuation of gold bar found during the search in question. Learned counsel is ndeed very fair in not disputing the seizure of the said gold bar in principle. It is in this factual backdrop that we note from a perusal of page 8 in the paper book that the registered valuer ITA No. 2054/Del/2022 Devendra Kumar Jha 3 had valued the said gold bar in issue weighing one kilogram @ Rs.27,82,400/- for the Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi on 15.12.2016. 6. This clinching fact has admittedly gone un-rebutted from the Revenue side during the course of hearing before us. That being the case, we conclude that the impugned addition of Rs.60,00,000/- deserves to be confirmed only to the extent of Rs.27,67,000/- in very terms. Ordered accordingly. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 7. There is yet another equally important aspect of assessee’s assessment made herein u/s 115BBE of the Act We notice that hon’ble Madras high court in S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No. 2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024 (Mad.) has already settled the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department that the same applies to the transaction on or after 01.04.2017 only. We accordingly direct the assessee to be assessed under normal provisions in very terms. ITA No. 2054/Del/2022 Devendra Kumar Jha 4 8. No other ground or argument has been pressed before us. 9. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 27/02/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 27/02/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR "