INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIRHIND V. J M G GREENS PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS, SIRHIND

ITA 223/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Department (Revenue) appealing against the order of the CIT (Appeals) which had deleted a significant addition to the assessee's income for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee, J M G Greens Promoters & Developers, had their assessment reopened by the AO, leading to additional income being assessed. This was contested and partially overturned by the ITAT in a previous ruling, which upheld only a minor addition related to an unsecured loan. The Revenue's appeal focused on the CIT (Appeals)'s deletion of the larger additions, which the ITAT found to be without jurisdiction under the modified directions following their earlier ruling.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772274 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHIR SEHGAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Revision of order
• Section: 148; 144; 263

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 223/CHD/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2012-13 The ITO, Sirhind. Vs J M G Greens Promoters & Developers, Opposite – Jain Mandir, Chandigarh Road, Sirhind. èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAIFJ0737F अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The Revenue is in appeal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 18.12.2024 passed for assessment year 2012-13. 2. The Revenue has taken two grounds of appeal wherein it has pleaded that ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,09,00,000/-. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.223/CHD/2025 A.Y.2012-13 2 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessment of the assessee was reopened by the AO by issuance of a notice u/s 148 on 31.03.2019. This re-opening was made on the ground that assessee has purchased immovable property for Rs.58,50,000/-. Ultimately, an assessment was framed on 19.12.2019 and income of the assessee was determined at Rs.2,44,020/- as against returned income of Rs.1,94,020/-. This assessment was set aside by the Commissioner of Income Tax while exercising the revisional power u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act vide his order dated 29.03.2022. Thereafter, AO has passed the fresh assessment order on 26.03.2023 u/s 144 read with Section 263 of the Act. 4. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT (Appeals). Simultaneously, it has challenged the order of the ld. CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act. 5. The ITAT has allowed appeal of the assessee partly vide its order dated 03.05.2024 (ITA No. 410/CHD/2022). The Tribunal has vacated the directions of the ld. CIT except an amount of Rs.10 lacs which was alleged to be received by the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.223/CHD/2025 A.Y.2012-13 3 assessee as unsecured loan from Smt. Harjinder Kaur. On the strength of this order, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that CIT (Appeals) has confirmed this addition of Rs.10 lacs by way of the impugned order and rest of the additions could not be made in view of the subsequent Tribunal’s order. 6. The ld. DR is unable to controvert the submissions of the ld. counsel for the assessee. 7. We have considered the rival contentions. Since the very foundation of second assessment order dated 26.03.2023 passed u/s 144 read with Section 263 is the directions issued u/s 263 by the ld. CIT while exercising his revisional powers, these directions have been modified by the ITAT in its judgement dated 03.05.2024. Therefore, AO has been denuded from his powers to make any addition except the addition qua which order u/s 263 has been upheld. The ITAT has upheld the order of Section 263 only qua unsecured loan of Rs.10 lacs, therefore, apart from this addition, no other addition could survive in view of the subsequent development in the appeal of the assessee before ITAT challenging 263 order. The ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.223/CHD/2025 A.Y.2012-13 4 assessee has not been challenging this addition of Rs.10lacs confirmed by the ld. CIT (Appeals) in the impugned order. Therefore, the ld. CIT (Appeals) has rightly deleted the other additions because these are made by the AO without any jurisdiction to make such additions. 8. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal of the Revenue. It is dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 27.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam” आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT a. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 4. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "