DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Sindhu Trade Links Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1268/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3928 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 09-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAUSHLENDRA TIWARI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 50C; 10

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1268/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004 - 05 ) DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 21, NEW DELHI VS. SINDHU TRADE LINKS LTD, C - 102, LOWER GROUND FLOOR, NEW MULTAN NAGAR, NEW DELHI PAN:AAACS0447A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI KAUSHLENDRA TIWARI, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI SANAT KAPOOR, ADV MS. SOUMYA SINGH, ADV DATE OF HEARING 03/08 / 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24/10/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI , A. M. 1. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) - XI, NEW DELHI DATED 23.12.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05, WHEREIN AN ADDITION OF RS. 4922700/ - WAS DELETED PERTAINING TO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS O F THE CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY WHO FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 19.10.2004 FOR RS. 36560010/ - . THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS MADE ON 20.12.2006 AT RS. 41624322/ - . ON APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGHER FORUM THE ABOVE SUM OF RS. 492270 0 / - WAS SET ASIDE BY THE COORDINATE BENCH TO THE FILE OF THE LD AO WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE MATTER AFTER CONDUCTING ENQUIRIES FROM THE PARTIES WHO HAVE SOLD PROPERTY TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER THE LANDS WERE SOLD BY THEM AT THE LOWER PRICE THEN THE VALUE STATED I N SALE DEED FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY. CONSEQUENTLY THE LD AO MADE AN ASSESSMENT HOLDING THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND IS HIGHER AND STAMP DUTY HAS BEEN PAID ON THE HIGHER VALUE WHICH PROVES THAT THE RATE OF LAND ON THE RELEVANT PERIOD ARE HIGHER. CONSEQUENTLY HE COMPUTED THE ADDITION OF RS. 492270 0 / - . THE LD CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH. PAGE 2 OF 2 THE LD CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ABOVE ADDITION VIDE PARA NO. 11.4 TO 11.6 OF THE ORDER. A CCORDING TO HIM NOTHING ADVERSE WAS NOTICED FROM THE REPLY OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ENQUIRIES WERE CONDUCTED BY THE AO AND IN FACT THEY CONFIRM ED THAT THE TRANSACTION OF THE SALE OF THE PROPERTIES IS AT THE PURCHASE PRICE SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. HE FUR THER HELD THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C FOR THAT RELEVANT YEAR APPLIED IN THE HANDS OF THE SELLER AND NOT THE BUYER. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE IS A BUYER. HENCE, HE STATED THAT INCOME CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING PROV ISION OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER EXAMINED THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 56(1)(VII) (B) OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE AS IT APPLIES W.E.F. 01.04.2014 . THE LD DR ALSO COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). WE ARE ALSO OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE IS NO PRO VISION OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STAMP DUTY VALUE AS WELL AS THE TRANSACTED VALUE CAN BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE BUYER. IN THE RESULT WE CONFIRM THE FINDING OF THE LD CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 4 / 1 0 / 2017 . - S D / - - S D / - ( C.M.GARG ) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 4 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 7 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI