INCOME TAX OFFICE, LUDHIANA V. DEEPAK KUMAR, LUDHIANA

ITA 721/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around the appeal by the Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, which pertained to the Assessment Year 2019-20. The primary contention was regarding the addition of Rs. 1,52,00,000 as unexplained investment under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the assessee registering a property at a significantly lower value than the assessed market value. The CIT(A) had set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, which the Revenue challenged. The Assessee, on the other hand, argued that the issue was already covered in their favor in a similar case involving M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., and thus, the setting aside was unnecessary. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and the precedent, decided in favor of the Assessee, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal and allowing the Cross Objection.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 824519 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 3, Vs. Ashokji Chanduji Thakor
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHIR SEHGAL; WAY OF CROSS OBJECTION NO.CHD HAVE
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained investment; Search and seizure
• Section: 147; 144; 142(1); 69

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,चǷीगढ़ Ɋायपीठ “ए” , चǷीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE ŵी लिलत क ुमार, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी क ृणवȶ सहाय, लेखा सद˟ BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 721 /Chd/ 2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year : 2019-20 The ITO Ludhiana बनाम Shri Deepak Kumar Khurana Agro Industries Mullapur Road, Hambran Road, Ludhiana-141012, Punjab ˕ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AHAPK2506J अपीलाथŎ/Appellant ŮȑथŎ/Respondent Cross Objection No. 33/Chd/2025 In (आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 721 /Chd/ 2025) िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shri Deepak Kumar Khurana Agro Industries Mullapur Road, Hambran Road, Ludhiana-141012, Punjab बनाम The ITO Ludhiana ˕ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AHAPK2506J अपीलाथŎ/Appellant ŮȑथŎ/Respondent िनधाŊįरती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राजˢ की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 10/12/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 आदेश/Order PER KRINWANT SAHAY, A.M: The present appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection filed by the Assessee are against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 28/03/2025 pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. In the present appeal Revenue has raised the following grounds: \"1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee and setting aside the matter to the file of AO, without going into and discussing the merits of the case that Assessing Officer Printed from counselvise.com 2 had given 4 to 5 opportunities to file the reply to the assessee and the assessee had given reply to the notice u/s 142(1) dated 26.08.2023 & Show Cause Notice dated 27.11.2023. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee and setting aside the matter to the file of AO, for adjudication—without taking into consideration that the assessment order dated 15.03.2024 was passed u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act after considering the submissions of the assessee and not a 'best judgement' assessment as per section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee and setting aside the assessment order back to the file of the A.O after merely provoking the newly inserted provision 251(1)(a) tosection 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is only applicable in the case of 'best judgement' assessment made under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that the addition of Rs. 1,52,00,0001 - made by the AO being unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the assessee had failed to furnish satisfactory explanation on this issue during the course of assessment proceedings. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that addition of Rs.1,52,00,000/- made by the A.O. on account of variation in respect of issue of unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE as the assessee failed to explain the nature and source of investment in purchase of immovable property for Rs. 1,92,50,0001- but registered it at Rs.40,50,0001 - during the financial year 2018-19 relevant to A.Y. 2019-20. 6. That, reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 3, Vs. Ashokji Chanduji Thakor dated 27.06.2018 wherein the order passed by the Hon'ble IT AT was quashed & order of AOICIT(A) were restored. Further appeal of the assessee (SLP No. 15019/2021) was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 26.07.2021. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal before it is finally disposed off.\" 3. The assessee has raised following grounds in its cross objection:- \"1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the case to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, since before the Ld. Assessing Officer, same submissions/arguments were made and no additional arguments/evidence was filed and, as such, setting aside the case to the file of the Assessing officer is bad in law. 2. That even otherwise, the issue under consideration on account of purchase of plot from \"M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.\" has been adjudicated and decided by the Hon'ble IT AT, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in similar identical issue in ITA No.8801CHD12024 & in favour of assessee thus, it is a covered issue. 3. That since it is covered issue and assessee being the purchaser of plot from M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. who is the seller and in respect of plots Printed from counselvise.com 3 sold by the M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee, the rate as per registered consideration having been accepted and, thus, the CIT(A) should not have set aside the case and rather decided the issue in favour of assessee. 4. That respondent craves leave to add or amend the ground of cross objections before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.\" 4. The facts as per assessment order are that there was a search and seizure operation conducted on M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. on 16.11.2021. As per appraisal of Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., it had been mentioned therein, that the said company, which is dealing in \"Real Estate\" business had executed a registered deed in favour of assessee concerned in respect of plot purchased by the assessee vide registration deed for an amount of Rs. 40,50,000/- against the sale consideration determined in the case of \"M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.\" @ Rs. 38,500/- per sq. yard. It was arrived while framing the assessment in the case of \"M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.\" 5. On the basis of information as received by the Assessing Officer, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 and the assessee submitted a detailed reply to the Assessing Officer. It has been reproduced at page 6 to page 9 of the order of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, however, following the rate as determined in the case of \"M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.\", which was calculated at Rs. 38,500/- per sq. yard, arrived at the sale consideration of 500 Sq. yard of plot at Rs. 1,92,50,000/- as determined in the assessment of M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and made an addition of Rs. 1,52,00,000/- u/s 69 and applied the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act, as well. 6. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and detailed submissions were made by the assessee starting from pages 19 to 32 of the order, both with regard to the reopening of the case u/s 147 and also on merits. It was contended on merits by the assessee that, though, it is a fact that while framing the assessment in the case of \"M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.\", the sale rate of plot to different persons by the M/s Homelife Buildcon Printed from counselvise.com 4 Pvt.Ltd., was adopted at 38,500/- per sq. yard and that rate was applied in the case of assessee for purchase of 500 sq yard of plot. Thus, the total consideration was determined at Rs. 1,92,50,000/- and by reducing the recorded consideration of Rs. 40,00,500/-, the addition of Rs. 1,52,50,000/- was made in the reopened assessment of the assessee. It was, however, contended by the assessee that no incriminating material was found by the department, in so far, as the purchase of 500 sq. yard of plot by the assessee from M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt.Ltd., at the rate of Rs. 38,500/- was determined on the basis of extrapolation made in the case of M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., while framing the assessment for Asstt. Year 2021-22. 7. It was also brought to the notice of the CIT(A) by the assessee that in the appeal filed by M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt.Ltd, the CIT(A)-5,,Ludhiana had deleted such addition made in the case of M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt.Ltd. So, was stated that the addition in the hands of assessee is not maintainable. The CIT(A), however, set aside the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of claim made by the appellant. 8. The assessee by way of Cross Objection No.33/Chd/2025 have challenged the setting aside of the case to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh consideration since the issue under consideration for purchase of plot from M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt.Ltd., has been adjudicated and decided by the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in ITA No. 880/Chd/2024 in favour of assessee company. Thus, it was contended by the Ld. Counsel that it is a covered issue. The assessee being the purchaser of plot from M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., who is a seller and in the case of said concern, the rate of sale have been accepted by the ITAT in appeal filed by the department against the order of CIT(A). A copy of the order of ITAT in ITA No. 880,1036/Chd/2025 for Asstt. Year 2021-22 have been placed before us. 9. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee also placed a copy of the order of M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., for Asstt. Year 2019-20 as well in ITA No.119/Chd/2025, wherein, the appeal of the department against the order Printed from counselvise.com 5 of CIT(A) have been dismissed following the order of M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.880,1036/Chd/2024. It was, thus,, contended that no useful purpose will be served in setting aside the case to the file of the Assessing Officer since the issue has finally been decided in the case of M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., and the reason for reopening u/s 147 was on only account of the addition in the hands of M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, wherein, the sale rate of entire colony has been extrapolated. The Ld. Senior DR relied upon the order of authorities below. 10. We have gone through the grounds of appeals as raised by the department and 'Cross Objections' of the assessee and the order of the Assessing Officer. The facts are not disputed in the sense that the very basis of reopening u/s 148, the case of the assessee was on account of sale rate of 38,500/- per sq. yard, as adopted by way of extrapolation in the case of \"M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.\", by the department. While framing their search assessment for Asstt. Year 2021 -22. It is also as per record that the Ld. CIT(A), while adjudicating the issue of extrapolation of rate in the case of M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, had deleted such addition made in the hands of said company and the department had come up in appeal before the ITAT in ITA No. 880/Chd/2024. The said addition have been deleted as per copy of the order placed in the Paper Book at pages 9 to 67. The finding in this respect have been given in the case of M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, by the Tribunal starting from para 59 and 60 of the said order. 11. Further, we have also gone through the order of the ITAT in the case of M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt.Ltd., in departmental appeal in ITA No. 190/Chd/2025 for Asstt. Year 2019-20. Similar addition was made and that addition was deleted by the CIT(A) and the department had come up in appeal in the ITAT in Appeal No. 190/Chd/d2025 and vide order, dated 03.09.2025 the Tribunal confirmed the order of CIT(A), deleting the addition on the basis of earlier order of the ITAT in ITA No. 880/Chd/2024. Since the very basis of addition as made by the Assessing Officer does not exist at all. No purpose will be served in prolonging the litigation by setting aside the Printed from counselvise.com 6 order to the file of the Assessing Officer, as the issue had attained finality at the level of the Tribunal. Thus, we allow the cross objection of the assessee and delete the addition as made by the Assessing Officer, following the order of Tribunal in the case of M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., for Asstt. Year 2021 - 22 and Asstt. Year 2019-20 as cited 'supra'. 12. In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and C.O. filed by the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.12.2025. Sd/- Sd/- लिलत क ुमार क ृणवȶ सहाय (LALIET KUMAR) (KRINWANT SAHAY) Ɋाियक सद˟ /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद˟/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG/ rkk आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, चǷीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाडŊ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "