Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97265 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
14-09-2015
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
G
Next Hearing Date
25-08-2015
Assessment Year
2006-2007
Appeal Filed On
26-03-2013
Judgement Text
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. KULDIP SINGH , JM ITA NO. 1748/DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2006 - 07 SUNAINA TOWER PVT. LTD. M - 11, MIDDLE CIRCLE, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI - 110001 VS ASSTT. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 23, NEW DELHI - 110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 1252/DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2006 - 07 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 23, NEW DELHI - 110001 VS SUNAINA TOWER PVT. LTD. M - 11, MIDDLE CIRCLE, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI - 110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAECS9840D ITA NO. 1734/DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2006 - 07 SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. M - 11, MIDDLE CIRCLE, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI - 110001 VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 23, NEW DELHI - 110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 1367/DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2007 - 08 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 23, NEW DELHI - 110001 VS SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. M - 11, MIDDLE CIRCLE, CONNAU GHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI - 110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AABCS5852N ITA NO S . 1753, 1754, 1759, 1748, 1734, 1529, 1670, 1534, 1252, 1367/DEL/2013 SUPER GROWTH, SUNAINA TOWER & SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 2 ITA NO. 1753/DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2006 - 07 ITA NO. 1754 / DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 200 6 - 07 SUPER GROWTH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., M - 11, MIDDLE CIRC LE, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI - 110001 VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 23 , NEW DELHI - 110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 1529/DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2006 - 07 ITA NO. 1670/DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2 006 - 07 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 23, NEW DELHI - 110001 VS SUPER GROWTH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., M - 11, MIDDLE CIRCLE, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI - 110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AABCS7168M ITA NO. 1759/DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2006 - 07 SUPER BELTS PVT. LTD. M - 11, MIDDLE CIRCLE, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI - 110001 VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 23, NEW DELHI - 110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 1534/DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2006 - 07 ASSTT. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 23, NEW DELHI - 110001 VS SUPER BELTS PVT. LTD. M - 11, MIDDLE CIRCLE, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI - 110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AABCD5112E ASSESSEE BY : SH. AJAY BHAGWANI, CA REVENUE BY : SH . SUJIT KUM AR , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 26 . 08 .2015 DATE O F PRONOU NCEMENT : 14 .09 .2015 ITA NO S . 1753, 1754, 1759, 1748, 1734, 1529, 1670, 1534, 1252, 1367/DEL/2013 SUPER GROWTH, SUNAINA TOWER & SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 3 ORDER PER BENCH: THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) - XXXIII, NEW DELHI AS PER FOLLOWING DETAILS: APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE APPEAL FILED BY DEPARTMENT DATE OF CIT(A) S ORDER 1748/DEL/2013 1252/DEL/2013 24.12.2012 1734/DEL/2013 1367/DEL/2013 24.12.2012 1753 & 1754/DEL/2013 1529 & 1670/DEL/2013 24.12.2012 1759/DEL/2013 1534/DEL/2013 17 .12.2012 2. SOME COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS WHICH WERE HEARD TOGETHER, SO THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 3. FIR ST WE WILL DEAL WITH THE CROSS APPEAL S PERTAINING TO M/S SUNAINA TOWER PVT. LTD. FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. IN THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1748 /DEL/2013 , FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED: 1. THAT O N THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING APPELLANT S CONTENTION THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE B Y ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB - INITIO ON THE GROUND THAT IT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MADE U/S 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, AND NOT, AS WAS DONE U/S 143(3) /147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ITA NO S . 1753, 1754, 1759, 1748, 1734, 1529, 1670, 1534, 1252, 1367/DEL/2013 SUPER GROWTH, SUNAINA TOWER & SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 4 2. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN MAKING THE ASSESSMENT IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, WITHOUT DEALING WITH APPELLANT S OBJECTIONS ON MERITS. 2.1 THAT THE CIT(A) HAVING GIVEN A FINDING THAT NO SEIZED MATERIA L OBTAINED FROM THE SEARCH OF BPTP GROUP OF CASES (NO SEARCH HAVING BEEN MADE ON THE APPELLANT) BELONGED TO THE APPELLANT, CLEARLY ERRED IN YET UPHOLDING THE ACTION U/S 147 TAKEN IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT BASED ON SUCH SEIZED MATERIAL. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING TO QUOTE, THAT SEIZED DOCUMENTS DEFINITELY PROVES THAT INTEREST IS PAID ON PDC DESPITE - I) THAT THE SEIZED RECORD ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ABOVE FINDING WAS GIVEN, EVEN ACCORDING TO HIS OWN FINDING BY THE CIT(A), DID NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT AND, II) THAT, NO ENQUIRIES WERE MADE FROM ANY OF THE ALLEGED RECIPIENTS OF THE INTEREST AND NONE WAS CONFRONTED WITH RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. 3.1 THAT THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IS BASED ON MERE S URMISES AND CONJECTURES WITHOUT PROOF AND CORROBORATION BY INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE. 4 . THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE APPELLANT S CONTENTION THAT ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS HAVING NOT BEEN CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION BY APPELLANT, NO DISALLOWANCE COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. ITA NO S . 1753, 1754, 1759, 1748, 1734, 1529, 1670, 1534, 1252, 1367/DEL/2013 SUPER GROWTH, SUNAINA TOWER & SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 5 4 .1 THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS MADE TO THE RECIPIENTS WHO WERE NOT THE OWNERS OF LAND AND TO THE PAYMENT MADE IN CASH. 4 .2 THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT HIMSELF QUANTIFYING THE ADDITION TO BE MADE. 5. THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - XXXIII, NEW DELHI ARE BAD IN LAW AND VOID A B - INITIO. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES PERMISSION TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR VARY ALL OR ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 4. IN THE DEP ARTMENTAL APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1252 /DEL/2013 , FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED : 1. ON T HE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 28,42,472 / - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON PDCS PAID OUT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,66,979/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL PAYMENT IN VIOLATION OF STAMP DUTY ACT, 1899. 3 . THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND IS NOT TENABLE ON FACTS AND IN LAW. ITA NO S . 1753, 1754, 1759, 1748, 1734, 1529, 1670, 1534, 1252, 1367/DEL/2013 SUPER GROWTH, SUNAINA TOWER & SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 6 4 . THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY /ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL . 5. GROUND NOS. 1, 2, 2.1, 5 & 6 OF THE ASSESS EE S APPEAL WERE NOT PRESSED, THEREFORE, THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 6. VIDE GROUND NOS. 3 & 3.1 OF THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL AND GROUND NO. 1 OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL RELATES TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTERES T ON POST DAT ED C HEQUES (PDCS). 7. THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 28,42,472/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON POST DATED CHEQUES FOR THE PART PAYMENT OF PURCHASE OF LAND. HE CALCULATED INTEREST @ 15% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE (SALE DEED) TO THE DATE OF ENCASHMENT OF THE CHEQUE AND MADE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HELD THAT IF IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO WORK OUT THE EXTENSION OF PDCS I N HIS CASE THEN THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTE INTEREST OF PDCS AFTER SIX MONTHS FROM DATE OF ISSUE OF PDCS I.E. DATE OF SALE. ITA NO S . 1753, 1754, 1759, 1748, 1734, 1529, 1670, 1534, 1252, 1367/DEL/2013 SUPER GROWTH, SUNAINA TOWER & SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 7 9 . NOW BOTH THE PARTIES ARE IN APPEAL. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTS OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND AT THE VERY OUTSET STATED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED VIDE ORDER DATED 31.10.2014 IN ITA NOS. 1674 & 1765/DEL/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 IN THE CASE OF M/S IAG PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. (C OPY OF WHICH I S PLACED AT PAGE NOS. 69 TO 73 OF THE ASSESSEE S PAPER BOOK ) . 10 . IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR ALTHOUGH SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO BUT COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 11 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING SIMILAR FACTS HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE ITAT DELHI BENCH C , NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS M/S IAG PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DATED 31.10.2014, THE RELEVANT FINDINGS ARE GIVEN IN PARA 5 WHICH READ AS UNDER: 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. AT THE OUTSET, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS MISCONCEIVED BECAUSE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT ITA NO S . 1753, 1754, 1759, 1748, 1734, 1529, 1670, 1534, 1252, 1367/DEL/2013 SUPER GROWTH, SUNAINA TOWER & SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 8 DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,06,625/ - BUT HAS ONLY DIRECTED TO RECALCULATE THE INTEREST. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ALSO THE SUBMISSIO NS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). AFTER EXAMINING THE LOOSE PAPERS SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AT THE ASSESSEE S PREMISES. IT WAS NOTICED THAT INTEREST IS PAID ON THE PDCS ONLY DURING THE PERIOD OF EXTENSION OF PDCS AND, THEREFORE, HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTED THE INTEREST ON PDCS AT THE TIME OF EXTENSION OF THE PDCS. HE HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IF IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO WORK OUT THE EXTENSION OF PDCS IN EACH CASE, THEN THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTED INTEREST ON PDCS AFTER SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE OF THE PDCS. THEREFORE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,06,625/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF IN TEREST ON PDCS IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND CONTRARY TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DIRECTED TO RECALCULATE THE INTEREST ON PDCS AND THERE WAS A SOUND LOGIC FOR SUCH DIRECTION. HIS DIRECTION IS BASED ON MATERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AND ACCORDINGLY, WE REJECT GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE S APPEAL. 12 . SINCE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN VOLVED IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASE OF M/S IAG PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. SO, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO ORDER DATED 31.10.2014, ITA NO S . 1753, 1754, 1759, 1748, 1734, 1529, 1670, 1534, 1252, 1367/DEL/2013 SUPER GROWTH, SUNAINA TOWER & SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 9 WE DO NOT SEE ANY VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A). ACCOR DINGLY, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT , ON THIS ISSUE. 13 . NEXT ISSUE VIDE GROUND NOS. 4 TO 4.2 OF THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL AND GROUND NO. 2 OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT O F ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND. 14 . THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 15,66,979/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS MADE FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND BY OBSERVING THAT SAID PAYMENT WAS IN VIOL ATION OF STAMP DUTY ACT AND SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS HIT BY EXPLANATION TO SEC. 37(1) OF THE ACT . 15 . BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND , THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THE EXPENSES, THE REFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN CALLED FOR IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. THE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION, SO NO DISALLOWANCE COULD HAVE BEEN MADE. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT ADDITIONAL PAYMENT WAS MADE ITA NO S . 1753, 1754, 1759, 1748, 1734, 1529, 1670, 1534, 1252, 1367/DEL/2013 SUPER GROWTH, SUNAINA TOWER & SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 10 BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SELLER OF THE LAND MAINLY ON ACCOUNT OF ENHANCED RATE OF LAND AT THE TIME OF REALIZATION OF PDCS AND THE SAID PAYMENT MADE TO THE OWNER OF THE LAND BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE WAS ALLOWABLE AS AN EXPENSE U/S 37 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) AND THE ADDITIONAL PAYMENT MADE TO OTHERS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY LEGAL RIGHT OVER THE LAND. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE ON THOSE PAYMENTS WAS CONFIRMED AS THERE WAS NO BUS INESS EXPEDIENCY. 16. NOW BOTH THE PARTIES ARE IN APPEAL. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING SIMILAR FACTS WAS INVOLVED IN ITA NO. 1752/DEL/2013 IN THE CASE OF M/S WESTLAND DEVELOPERS PV T. LTD. VS ACIT WHEREIN THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED VIDE PARA 13 OF THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2014. THE SAID CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR. 17 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREF ULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING SIMILAR FACTS HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASE OF M/S WESTLAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VIDE ORDER ITA NO S . 1753, 1754, 1759, 1748, 1734, 1529, 1670, 1534, 1252, 1367/DEL/2013 SUPER GROWTH, SUNAINA TOWER & SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 11 DATED 22.08.2014 IN ITA NO. 17 52/DEL/2013 W HEREIN THE RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN PARA 13 WHICH READ AS UNDER: 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. O N A CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE MATERIAL ISSUE IS THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS NEVER CLAIMED AS ASSESSEE S BUSINESS EXPENDITURE THE OCCASION TO MAKE A DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAME DOES NOT ARISE . ON THIS FACT THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS ADMITTEDLY THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT CLAIMED AS AN EXPENSE BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONSEQUENTLY HAS NOT BEEN ROUTED THROUGH ITS P&L A/C. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE OCCASION TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF THE SAME BY WAY OF A DISALL OWANCE IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE DOES NOT ARISE. THE REASONING AND FINDING GIVEN WHILE CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS QUA GROUND NO - 4 WOULD FULLY APPLY HERE ALSO. THE DIFFERENCE THAT HERE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IS ADDED U/S 37 AS OPPOSE D TO PART OF THE EXPENDITURE DISALLOWED U/S 40A(3) IS NOT SO MATERIAL AS THE FINDING IS ARRIVED AT TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE MATERIAL FACT THAT HEREIN ALSO NO SUCH CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN MADE. THE FACT THAT THE ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS WERE WARRANTED IN ORDER TO AVOID POTENTIAL DISPUTES AMONGST THE CLAIMANTS OF THE LAND HOLDING WHICH HAVE BEEN PASSED THROUGH TO THE LAND HOLDERS FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION WHEREIN THERE MAY BE INFORMAL ARRANGEMENTS OF OWNERSHIP AND OR THE PAYMENTS WERE FOR COMMERCI AL EXPEDIENCY TO FACILITATE PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND REGISTRATION OF THE LAND HOLDING; WHERE BY THE TIME REGISTRY WAS MADE THE LANDHOLDERS FELT A HIGHER PAYMENT WAS NECESSITATED DUE TO INCREASE IN VALUE ARE ISSUES WHICH ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADDRESSED IN T HE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO S . 1753, 1754, 1759, 1748, 1734, 1529, 1670, 1534, 1252, 1367/DEL/2013 SUPER GROWTH, SUNAINA TOWER & SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 12 GROUNDNO - 3 ON THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD CONSIDERING THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENT REFERRED TO IN DETAIL WHILE DECIDING GROUND NO - 4 HAS TO BE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.3.1 AND 3.2 AS SUCH NEED NOT BE ADJUDICATED IN T HE PRESENT CASE. QUA GROUND NO - 2 THE OBSERVATION AND FINDINGS TO THE EXTENT THAT GENERAL OBSERVATIONS BASED ON MATERIAL FOUND DURING BPTP GROUP OF COMPANIES WHICH WERE SEARCHED DOES NOT HAVE ANY BEARING. THE MATERIAL NOT HAVING BEEN CONFRONTED TO THE ASS ESSEE IN THE FACE OF THE ARGUMENT THAT EVEN OTHERWISE HAS NO NEXUS HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE BY ANY EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT AS THE THRUST OF THE PARTIES ATTENTION REMAINED FOCUSED ON ADDRESSING THE ADDITIONS MADE. IN THE AFORE - MENTIONED PECULIAR F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE CIT(A) MAKES A REFERENCE TO FACTS NOT BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD NAMELY RECORDING OF STATEMENT OF SOME PATWARI AND CHOTU RAM THE SUPPORT DRAWN BY THE CIT(A) IN SU STAINING THE ADDITION IS FOUND TO BE MISPLACED. HOWEVER SINCE THE SPECIFIC ADDITIONS UNDER CHALLENGE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED ON FACTS AND THE LEGAL POSITION THEREON GROUND NO - 2 IN TERMS OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATION IS LEFT OPEN FOR WANT OF NECESSARY EVIDENCES AND ARGUMENTS BASED ON EVIDENCES. 18 . SO, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO ORDER DATED 22.08.2014 IN THE CASE OF WESTLAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 1752/DEL/2013 (SUPRA). THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 19 . NOW WE WILL DEAL WITH THE CROSS APPEAL S RELATING TO M/S SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1367/DEL/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 , THE ITA NO S . 1753, 1754, 1759, 1748, 1734, 1529, 1670, 1534, 1252, 1367/DEL/2013 SUPER GROWTH, SUNAINA TOWER & SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 13 ONLY GROUND RAISED RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 14,32,98 0/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON PDCS. A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS INVOLVED IN ITA NO. 1252/DEL/2013 IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN THE CASE OF M/S SUNAINA TOWER PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), THEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER SHALL AP PLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER , WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. 20 . IN THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1734/DEL/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 , GROUND NOS. 1.1 & 1.2 RELATING TO ADDITIONAL PAYMENT WAS NO T PRESSED AND GROUND NOS. 3 & 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, SO THESE GROUNDS DO NOT REQUIRE ANY COMMENTS ON OUR PART. THE ONLY ISSUE NEEDS ADJUDICATION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND NOS. 2 & 2.1 RELATES TO THE CONFIRMATION OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A O U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. AS REGARDS TO THIS ISSUE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF M/S WESTLAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. (A GROUP COMPANY) IN ITA NO. 1752/DEL/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006 - 07 AND RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN PARA 10.10 OF THE SAID ORDER DATED 22.08.2014 . THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR. ITA NO S . 1753, 1754, 1759, 1748, 1734, 1529, 1670, 1534, 1252, 1367/DEL/2013 SUPER GROWTH, SUNAINA TOWER & SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 14 21 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S OF BOTH THE PARTIES A ND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING SIMILAR FACTS WAS A SUBJECT MATTER OF ADJUDICATION BY THE ITAT DELHI BENCH H , NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF WESTLAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS ACIT IN ITA NO. 1752/DEL/2013 FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 WHEREIN RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN PARA 10.10 OF THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2014 WHICH READ AS UNDER: 10.10. WE HAVE ALSO TAKEN OURSELVES THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS INDUS TRIAL ENGINEERING PROJECTS PVT. LTD. (CITED SUPRA) WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BEFORE US FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES CANNOT BE TREATED TO BE A REVENUE RECEIPT. HOW THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS & FERTIL IZERS IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE HAS NOT BEEN SET OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES NOR HAS THE LD. DR BEEN ABLE TO ADDRESS THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SAID JUDGMENT TO THE ISSUE AT HAND. WE HAVE TAKEN OURSELVES THROUGH THE SAID JUDGMEN T AND SEEN THAT IT PROCEEDS ON ENTIRETY DIFFERENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND HAS NO APPLICABILITY TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS SEEN THAT FROM THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND ALSO BEFORE US WHICH HAV E BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER NO ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED BY THE REVENUE SO AS TO CONTEND HOW THEY ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE AT HAND, NO DISTINGUISHING FACT, CIRCUMSTANCE OR POSITION OF LAW HAS BEEN RELIED UPON SO AS TO COME T O A CONTRARY FINDING THAN THE ONE ARRIVED AT. ACCORDINGLY ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF THE ACT NAMELY SECTION ITA NO S . 1753, 1754, 1759, 1748, 1734, 1529, 1670, 1534, 1252, 1367/DEL/2013 SUPER GROWTH, SUNAINA TOWER & SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 15 40A(3), WE HOLD FOR THE DETAILED RE ASONS GIVEN HEREINABOVE THAT SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN WRONGLY INVOKED AS ADMITTEDLY NO EXPENSES RELATABLE TO THE ADDITION HAS BEEN CLAIMED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PAYMENT WERE RE - IMBURSEMENT MADE BY CWPPL. ACCORDI NGLY GROUND NO - 4 IS ALLOWED. 22 . SO, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO ORDER, THE PRESENT ISSUE AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DECIDED IN ASSESSEE S FAVOUR. 23 . NOW WE WILL DEAL WITH THE CROSS APPEALS RELATING TO M/S SUPER GROWTH CONSTRUCTIO N PVT. LTD. THE ONLY ISSUE AGITATED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ITA NO. 1529/DEL/2013 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 26,72,082/ - MADE BY THE AO BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37(A) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL PAYMENT IN VIOLATION OF STA MP DUTY ACT, 1899. A SIMILAR ISSUE , WE HAVE ALREADY ADJUDICATED WHILE DECIDING THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1252/DEL/2013 IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS SUNAINA TOWER PVT. LTD. IN THE FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER. THEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS GIVEN THEREIN SHALL APP LY MUTATIS MUTANDIS FOR THIS ASSESSEE ALSO . IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER , WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. ITA NO S . 1753, 1754, 1759, 1748, 1734, 1529, 1670, 1534, 1252, 1367/DEL/2013 SUPER GROWTH, SUNAINA TOWER & SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 16 24 . IN THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IN IT A NO. 1753/DEL/2013, GROUND NOS. 1, 2, 5 AND 6 WERE NOT PRESSED, THEREFORE, THOSE GROUNDS A RE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED . 25 . VIDE GROUND NOS. 3 TO 3.2 THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE PERTAINS TO THE ADDITIONAL PAYMENT MADE TO THE PERSON WHO WERE NOT THE OWNERS OF THE LAND. A SIMILAR ISSUE WE HAVE ADJUDICATED IN ITA NO. 1748/DEL/2013 IN THE CASE OF M/S SUNAINA TOWER PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 23 IN THE FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER. THEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS GIVEN THEREIN SHALL APPLY WITH THE SAME FORCE TO THESE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THES E GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 26 . VIDE GROUND NOS. 4 & 4.1 THE ISSUE AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS INVOLVED VIDE GROUND NOS. 2 & 2.1 OF THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1734/DE L/2013 IN THE CASE OF M/S SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. VS ACIT WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY ADJUDICATED IN THE FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER. THEREFORE, BY GIVING THE SAME REASONING THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 27 . NOW WE WILL DEAL WITH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 1754/DEL/2013 AND THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN ITA ITA NO S . 1753, 1754, 1759, 1748, 1734, 1529, 1670, 1534, 1252, 1367/DEL/2013 SUPER GROWTH, SUNAINA TOWER & SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 17 NO. 1670/DEL/2013 IN THE CASE OF M/S SUPER GROWTH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 28 . GROUND NOS. 1, 2, 2.1, 4 & 5 OF THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL WERE NOT PRESSED, SO THESE ARE DISMISSED AS NO T PRESSED. 29 . THE ANOTHER ISSUE AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND NOS. 3 & 3.1 AND GROUND NO. 1 IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL RELATES TO THE INTEREST ON PDCS. THIS ISSUE IS SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF M/S SUNAINA TOWER PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) , THEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS GIVEN THEREIN IN THE FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. 3 & 3.1 ARE ALLOWED WHILE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 30 . THE ANOTHER ISSUE AGITATED BY THE DEPARTMENT VIDE GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 7,63,025/ - MADE BY THE AO U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. THE SAID ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS ANKITECH PVT. LTD. REPORTED AT 340 ITR 14. 31 . DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOTHING CONTRARY TO THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD. MOREOVER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ITA NO S . 1753, 1754, 1759, 1748, 1734, 1529, 1670, 1534, 1252, 1367/DEL/2013 SUPER GROWTH, SUNAINA TOWER & SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 18 THIS ISSUE IS COVERED B Y THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2015 OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCH C , NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF M/S ISG ESTATE PVT. LTD. IN ITA NOS. 1532 & 1756/DEL/2013, COPY OF W HICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE NOS. 5 6 TO 67 OF THE ASSESSEE S COMPILATION. 32 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUB MISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING SIMILAR FACTS HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE ITAT DELHI BENCH C , NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS ISG ESTATE PVT. LTD. WHEREIN ON A SIM ILAR ISSUE RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN PARAS 21 & 22 OF THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2015 WHICH READ AS UNDER: 21. WE HAVE HEARD THE BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORD AVAILABLE WITH US SPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES; PAPER BOOK F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 3 RAISED IN THE REVENUE S APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S ANKITECH PVT. LTD. (340 ITR 14) AND ALSO REPORTED IN [2011] 11 TAXMANN.COM 100 (DELHI) VIDE ORDER DATED 11.5.2011 WHEREIN THE HON BLE COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: - ACCORDING TO SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE TO BE SATISFIED : (I) THE PAYER COMPANY MUST BE A CLOSELY HELD COMPANY; (II) IT APPLIES TO ANY SUM PAID BY WAY OF LOAN OR ADVANCE ITA NO S . 1753, 1754, 1759, 1748, 1734, 1529, 1670, 1534, 1252, 1367/DEL/2013 SUPER GROWTH, SUNAINA TOWER & SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 19 DURING THE YEAR TO THE FOLLOWING PERSONS : (A) A SHAREHOLDER HOLDING AT LEAST 10 OF THE VOTING POWER IN THE PAYER COMPANY; (B) A COMPANY IN WHICH SUCH SHARE HOLDER HAS AT LEAST 20 PER CENT OF THE VOTING POWER; (C) A CONCERN (OTHER THAN COMPANY) IN WHICH SUCH SHARE HOLDER HAS AT LEAST 20 PER CENT INTEREST; (III) THE PAYER COMPANY HAS ACCUMULATED PROFITS ON THE DATE OF ANY SUCH PAYMENT AND THE PAYMENT IS OUT OF ACCUMULATED PROFITS; (IV) THE PAYMENT OF LOAN OR ADVANCE IS NOT IN THE COURSE OF ORDINARY BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. BY A DEEMING PROVISION IT IS THE DEFINITION OF DIVIDEND WHICH IS ENLARGED. THE LEGAL FICTION DOES NOT EXTEND T O SHAREHOLDER . THE FICTION IS NOT TO BE EXTENDED FURTHER FOR BROADENING THE CONCEPT OF SHAREHOLDERS. CIRCULAR NO. 495, DATED SEPTEMBER, 22, 1987, ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES IS NOT BINDING ON THE HIGH COURT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD RECEIVED ADVANCES OF RS. 6,32,72,265/ - BY WAY OF BOOK ENTRY FROM A COMPANY, JGPL AND THE SHARE HOLDERS HAVING SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ALSO HAD 10 PER CENT OF THE VOTING P OWER IN JGPL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT AS THE TWO GUPTAS WERE MEMBERS HOLDING SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN JGPL WHICH HAD PROVIDED LOANS AND ADVANCES TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THESE VERY PERSONS HAD SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM JGPL WHICH CONSTITUTED ADVANCES AND LOANS WOULD BE TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND WITHIN THE MEANING OF ITA NOS.1532 & 1756/DEL/2013 12 SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT AN D ADDED THE A MOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE. THE TRIBUNAL DELETED THE ADDITION. ON APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT: HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEALS, THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS CORRECT IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ITA NO S . 1753, 1754, 1759, 1748, 1734, 1529, 1670, 1534, 1252, 1367/DEL/2013 SUPER GROWTH, SUNAINA TOWER & SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 20 RS. 6,32,72,265/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSE S SEE COMPANY UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E). 22. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT, WE FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS BEEN SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. ANKITECH P LTD. (SUPRA). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT AS AFORESAID, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENU E. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 33 . SO, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO ORDER, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. 34 . NOW WE WILL DEAL WITH THE CROSS APPEALS PERTAINING TO M/S SUPER BELTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI IN ITA NO. 1759 /DEL/2013. IN THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IN GROUND NOS. 1, 5 & 6 WERE NOT PRESSED, SO THESE ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 35 . AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO. 2 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THI S GROUND BECOMES ACADEMIC IN NATURE , SO IT IS NOT PRESSED. A CCORDINGLY , IT IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 36 . GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL AND GROUND NO. 1 OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1534/DEL/2013 ITA NO S . 1753, 1754, 1759, 1748, 1734, 1529, 1670, 1534, 1252, 1367/DEL/2013 SUPER GROWTH, SUNAINA TOWER & SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 21 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT O F ADDITIONAL PAYMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND. THIS ISSUE IS SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF M/S SUPER GROWTH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) . THEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER WHILE ADJUDICATING THE SAID CASE SHALL BE APPLICABLE MUTATIS MUTANDIS. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT. 37 . GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THIS ISSUE IS SIMILA R TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF M/S SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). THEREFORE IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE SAID CASE IN THE FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER THE DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DELETED. 38 . THE REMAINING ISSUE INVOL VED IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL VIDE GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 8,47,366/ - MADE BY THE AO U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND. THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE DEPARTME NTAL APPEAL IN THE CASE OF M/S SUPER GROWTH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 1670/DEL/2013 (SUPRA) WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY ADJUDICATED IN THE FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER. THEREFORE, OUR ITA NO S . 1753, 1754, 1759, 1748, 1734, 1529, 1670, 1534, 1252, 1367/DEL/2013 SUPER GROWTH, SUNAINA TOWER & SUNGLOW OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 22 FINDINGS GIVEN THEREIN SHALL APPLY WITH THE SAME FORCE FOR THIS ASSESSEE S CASE ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. 39 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE S ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND THOSE OF THE DEPARTMENT ARE DISMISSED. ( ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE COURT ON 14 /0 9 / 2015) . SD/ - SD/ - (KULDIP SINGH ) ( N. K. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 14 /09 /2015 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
