M/s. Classic Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1337/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9914 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIDHI SRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Search and seizure; Document seized; Additional evidence; Difference of opinion; Documents seized; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 143(1); 201; 139(1); 131; 68; 132

Judgement Text

IN TH E INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO S . 1337 & 1338 /DEL/201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 0 3 - 0 4 & 20 0 4 - 0 5 CLASSIC REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., 12, RING ROAD, LAJPAT NAGAR - IV, NEW DELHI. PAN: AACCC0723H VS DCIT, CC - 12, NEW DELHI. (APP ELL A NT ) (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE BY : SHRI SUDESH GARG, ADV OCATE RE VENUE BY : MS NIDHI SRIVASTAVA, CIT, DR DATE OF HEARING : 0 9 . 0 2 . 20 2 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 . 0 3 . 20 2 1 ORDER PER R. K. PANDA, AM : TH E ABOVE TWO APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER S DATED 31 ST DECEMBER, 201 3 OF THE CIT(A) - 31 , NEW DELHI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR S 20 0 3 - 04 AND 200 4 - 05 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NO.1337/DEL/2014 (A.Y. 2003 - 04) 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 2 ND DECEMBER, ITA NO S . 1337 & 1338 /DEL/201 4 2 2003 DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME AT NIL. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE IT ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN TH E CASE OF RAJDARBAR GROUP OF CASES INCLUDING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 31.07.2008. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE IT ACT, 1961 DATED 4 TH FEBRUARY, 2010, THE ASSESSEE, VIDE LETTER DATED 15 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010, REQUESTED THE AO TO SUPPLY COPY OF SEIZ ED MATERIAL RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A DECLARING NIL INCOME ON 11 TH OCTOBER, 2010. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN FILED U/S 153A IS THE SAME A S WAS FILED IN THE RETURN U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF FRESH SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,84,50,000/ - . HE REQU ESTED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THESE TRANSACTIONS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 68 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 BY FILING CONFIRMATIONS, COPIES OF IT RETURNS, PAN, BANK ACCOUNT, ETC. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE FILED CERTAIN DETAILS, HOWEVER, ACCORDING T O THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,84,50,000/ - FROM THE FOLLOWIN G COMPANIES AGAINST WHICH SHARES WERE ISSUED: - ITA NO S . 1337 & 1338 /DEL/201 4 3 ITA NO S . 1337 & 1338 /DEL/201 4 4 4. HE NOTED THAT THE ABOVE - MENTIONED COMPANIES ARE ALSO CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE INVESTMENTS IN M/S VIKAS TELECOM LTD AND IN M/S DD RESORTS PVT. LTD. TH E ISSUE OF INTRODUCTION OF SHARE CAPITAL THROUGH KOLKATA BASED COMPANIES WAS REFERRED TO THE INVESTIGATION WING, KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF M/S VIKAS TELECOM LTD. AND M/S DD RESORTS PVT. LTD. IN WHICH THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS RECEIVED FROM KOLKATA BASED COMPANIES AND EXTENSIVE ENQUIRIES WERE MADE. THE AO NO TED THAT AS PER THE GIST OF INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED AT KOLKATA ABOUT THE ABOVE MENTIONED COMPANIES, IT WAS FOUND THAT MOST OF THE CONCERNS DID NOT EXIST IN THE GIVEN ADDRESSES. EFFORTS WERE ALSO MADE TO SERVE THE SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT THROUGH INSPECT ORS, BUT, MOST OF THESE COMPANIES COULD NOT BE LOCATED . T HEREFORE, THE GENUINENESS AND THE IDENTITIES OF THESE CONCERNS ARE DOUBTFUL. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT WHEREVER THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THESE CONCERNS APPEARED AND CONFIRMED THE INVESTMENTS, T HE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE SAID CONCERNS COULD NOT BE PROVED AS ONLY LITTLE PROFITS WERE BEING MADE BY THESE COMPANIES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND IN VIEW OF THE INABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVIDENCE TO HIS SATISFACTION REGARDING THE IDEN TITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, THE AO, RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2,8 4 ,50,000/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT . SIMILARLY, FOR A.Y. 2004 - 05, TH E AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.50 LAKHS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO S . 1337 & 1338 /DEL/201 4 5 5. IN APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A), IN SEPARATE ORDERS, CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER S OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - ITA NO.1337/DEL/2014 (A.Y. 2003 - 04) 1. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS BAD IN LAW, IN NATURE AS ASSESSMENT HAS NOT BEEN FRAMED ON THE SEIZED PURSUANT TO AN ACTION TAKEN UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT BUT THE REASSESSMENT AND CHANGE OF OPINION HAS BEEN MADE AS SUCH THE ORDER PASSED IS ILLEGAL AND THEREFORE IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2 . THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS BY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,84,50,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF IT ACT, 1961. 3 . THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED. 4 . THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE FOR ADDITION, MODIFICATION, DELETION, ANY OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE THE HEARING OF APPEAL OR AT THE TIME OF APPEAL. ITA NO.133 8 /DEL/2014 (A.Y. 2003 - 04) 1. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS BAD IN LAW, IN NATURE AS ASSESSMENT HAS NOT BEEN FRAMED ON THE SEIZED PURSUANT TO AN ACTION TAKEN UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT BUT THE REASSESSMENT AND CHANGE OF OP INION HAS BEEN MADE AS SUCH THE ORDER PASSED IS ILLEGAL AND THEREFORE IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2 . THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS BY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,00, 000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF IT ACT, 1961. 3 . THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED. 4 . THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE FOR ADDITION, MODIFICATION, DELETION, ANY OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE THE HEARING OF APPEAL OR AT THE TIME OF APPEAL. ITA NO S . 1337 & 1338 /DEL/201 4 6 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED THE FOLLOWING IDENTICAL ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR BOTH THE YEARS: - 1. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS WHICH WERE NOT BASED ON THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOU ND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, REFERRING TO THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL GROUND, SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS PURELY A LEGAL GROUND AND NO NEW FACTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE INVESTIGATED. RELYING ON THE DECISIONS OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NTPC LTD. VS. CIT, 229 ITR 383 , JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VS. CIT, REPORTED IN 187 ITR 688 AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ADMITTED. 9. THE LD. DR , ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY OPPOSED THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND SO RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER A LAPSE OF MORE THAN FIVE YEARS FROM FINALIZATION OF ASSESSMENT AND, THE REFORE, THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED. SHE SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THIS ISSUE WAS RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS A GROUND, HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS NOT PURSUED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE NOW SHOU LD NOT BE ADMITTED. 10 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES ON THE ISSUE OF ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND. SINCE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PURELY A LEGAL GROUND, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS ADMITTED FOR ADJUDI CATION. ITA NO S . 1337 & 1338 /DEL/201 4 7 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT FOR A.Y. 2003 - 04 THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 12 TH DECEMBER, 2003 AND FOR A.Y. 2004 - 05, THE RETURN WAS FILED ON 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2005. SINCE THE SEARCH IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS CONDUCT ED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON 31.07.2008, THEREFORE, THESE ARE UNABATED RETURNS CONSEQUENT UPON THE SEARCH CARRIED OUT IN JULY, 2008. REFERRING TO THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER S FOR BOTH THE YEARS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT VERY UNAM BIGUOUSLY REVEALS THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO FOR BOTH THE YEARS WERE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH AS NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND OR SEIZED HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ADDITI ONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF POST - SEARCH ENQUIRIES AND, THEREFORE, WERE UNDISPUTABLY OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT U/S 153A OF THE ACT AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. HE SUBMITTED THAT T HE LD. CIT(A) ALSO HAS NOT REFERRED TO ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT S /MATERIALS WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA, 61 TAXMANN.COM 412 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT ADDITIONS IN THE UNABATED ASSESSMENTS CAN BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF I NCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND OR SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH DESERVES TO BE DELETED. HE FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT ALTHOUGH IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSMENTS WERE NOT COMPLETED U/S 143(3), BUT, WERE COMPLETED U/S 143(1) , H OWEVER, SUCH PROCESSING U/S 143(1) IS CONSIDERED EQUIVALENT TO 143(3) ASSESSMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITA NO S . 1337 & 1338 /DEL/201 4 8 DETERMINING WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT IS ABATED OR UNABATED. FOR THE ABOVE PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. MAR ICHIKA PROPERTIES (P) LTD., VIDE ITA 633/2016 & CM NO.30477/2016 AND ITA 634/2016 & CM NO.30478/2016, ORDER DATED 19 TH OCTO BER, 2016. 1 2 . THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO, IN PARA 5 OF THE ORDER HAS PRIMARILY MADE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT AFTER REFERRING TO THE ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING AT KOLKATA IN THE CASES OF GROUP ENTITIES M/S VIKAS TELECOM LTD AND IN M/S DD RESORTS PVT. LTD. HE SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR ADDITIONS OF RS.3,32,00,000/ - FOR A.Y. 2003 - 04 AND OF RS.25 LAKHS FOR A.Y. 2004 - 05 WERE ACTUALLY MADE BY THE AO IN THE CASE OF M/S VIKAS TELECOM LTD., USING SIMILAR LANGUAGE. RE FERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE AO AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF VIKAS TELECOM LTD., HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHERE HE HAS ASKED THE AO TO POINT OUT THE SEIZED MATERIAL WHICH WAS USED FOR MAKING ADDITIO NS. IN THE REMAND REPORT , WHICH HAS BEEN QUOTED BY THE CIT(A) AT PARA 3.5 OF HIS ORDER , THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL SEIZED. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH A DDITIONS WERE MADE WITHOUT ANY SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ITA NO.6683/DEL/2013, ORDER DATED 2 ND JULY, 2018, DISMISSED TH E ITA NO S . 1337 & 1338 /DEL/201 4 9 APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA , 380 ITR 573 (DEL). RELYING ON VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS, HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ADDITION IN THE INSTANT CASE IS NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIM INATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE ACT FOR BOTH THE YEARS DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 1 3 . THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDERS O F THE AO AND THE CIT(A). SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO, IN THE INSTANT CASE, AFTER CONDUCTING THOROUGH ENQUIRIES, HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ROUTED ITS UNACCOUNTED MONEY THROUGH KOLKATA BASED BOGUS ENTRY PROVIDING COMPANIES. SHE ACCORDI NGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE SUSTAINED AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE D ISMISSED. 1 4 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND, THE AO, IN THE INSTANT CASE, MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,84,50,000/ - FOR A.Y. 2003 - 04 AND RS.50 LAKHS FOR A.Y. 2004 - 05 BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF TH E IT ACT SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVIDENCE TO HIS SATISFACTION REGARDING THE IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE INVESTOR COMPANIES WHO HAVE INVESTED IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. WE F IND, THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. ITA NO S . 1337 & 1338 /DEL/201 4 10 COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) FOR BOTH THE YEARS ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COU RSE OF SEARCH, AND IS BASED ON POST - SEARCH ENQUIRIES, THEREFORE, SUCH ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 1 5 . WE FIND SOME FORCE IN THE ABOVE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE . A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR BOTH THE YEARS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ADDITION IS NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH , BUT, THE SAME IS BASED ON POST SEARCH ENQUIRIES MADE BY THE AO. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE AO WHILE MAKING TH E ADDITION HAS RELIED ON THE ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED FOR EXAMINING INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE CASE OF M/S VIKAS TELECOM LTD AND IN M/S DD RESORTS PVT. LTD. SINCE THE COMPANIES WHO HAVE MADE INVESTMENT IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAVE ALSO MADE INVESTMENTS IN TH E ABOV E TWO COMPANIES. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VIKAS TELECOM LTD. (SUPRA) SHOWS THAT THE AO, IN THE REMAND REPORT, HAD CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT NO SEIZED DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE USE OF IN THE ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, EXTENSIVE EN QUIRIES HAVE BEEN MADE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REGARDING THE ACCOMMODATI ON ENTRIES. THUS, IN THAT CASE A LSO NO SEIZED DOCUMENT WAS REFERRED TO BY THE AO IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE ADDITION IN THE INSTANT CASE IS NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AND BASED ON POST SEARCH ENQUIRIES WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF CIT(A) FOR BOTH THE YEARS . UNDER THESE ITA NO S . 1337 & 1338 /DEL/201 4 11 CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE TO SEE WHETHER SUCH ADDITION CAN BE SUSTAINED IN UNA BATED ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 153A OF THE ACT. 15.1 THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S 153A OF THE A CT IN CASE OF A COMPLETED ASSESSMENT. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. MEETA GUTGUTIA, REPORTED IN 395 ITR 526, PCIT VS. MS LATA JAIN REPORTED IN 384 ITR 543, PCIT VS. BEST INFRASTRUCTURE REPORTED IN 392 ITR 82, PCIT VS. DHARAMPAL PREMCHAND LTD., REPORTED IN 2017 - TIOL - 1649 - HC - DEL , IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. SUBHASH KHATTAR IN ITA 60/2017, ORDER DATED 25 TH JULY, 2017 AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS . SINCE, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ADDITION HAS NOT BEEN MADE ON TH E BASIS OF ANY SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, BUT, BASED ON POST - SEARCH ENQUIRIES, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) BEING NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH LAW IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IS ALLOWED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON THE ADDITIONAL GROUND, THE GROUND S CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF ADDITION ON MERIT IS NOT BEING ADJUDICATED BEING ACADEMIC IN NATURE . ITA NO S . 1337 & 1338 /DEL/201 4 12 1 6 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED . THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 .0 3 .20 21 . SD/ - SD/ - ( SUCHITRA KAMBLE ) ( R. K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 17 TH MARCH, 2021. DK COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI