Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8328 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
3 year(s) 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
04-10-2019
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
E
Assessment Year
2004-2005
Appeal Filed On
09-05-2016
Judgement Text
ITA NO.- 2599/DEL/2016 WORLDWIDE REALTORS PVT. LTD. PAGE 1 OF 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: E: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO:- 2599/DEL/2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI. VS. M/S WORLDWIDE REALTORS PVT. LTD., FLAT NO.-4,R.R. APARTMENT 3-4, MANGLAPURI, MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI. PAN NO: AAACW1175B APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO:- 2600/DEL/2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI. VS. M/S WORLDWIDE REALTORS PVT. LTD., FLAT NO.-4,R.R. APARTMENT 3-4, MANGLAPURI, MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI. PAN NO: AAACW1175B APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO.- 2599/DEL/2016 WORLDWIDE REALTORS PVT. LTD. PAGE 2 OF 10 ITA NO:- 2602/DEL/2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI. VS. M/S WORLDWIDE REALTORS PVT. LTD., FLAT NO.-4,R.R. APARTMENT 3-4, MANGLAPURI, MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI. PAN NO: AAACW1175B APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SMT. PARMITA M. BISWAS, CIT(DR) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI LALIT MOHAN, ADV. DATE OF HEARING : 03.10.2019 CONSOLIDATED ORDER PER BENCH (A) THE AFOREMENTIONED APPEALS BY REVENUE ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY AND THESE APPEALS ARE HEREB Y DISPOSED OFF THROUGH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER; BECAUSE, IN THESE APPEALS THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT OF RS. 50,00,000/- FIXED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TA XES (CBDT, FOR SHORT) IN ITS CIRCULAR NO. 17/2019 DATED 08.08.2019. GROUNDS TAKEN IN THESE AP PEALS OF REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: ITA NO.-2599/DEL/2016 1. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS SUBSTANTIALLY ERRED ON FAC TS AND IN LAW IN CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE I LLEGAL CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE SEARCH OPERATIONS INCLUDING MANHANDLING THE SEARCH OFFICERS, LOOTING OF SEIZED MATERIAL AND REGISTRATION OF CRIMINAL CASE A GAINST THE PROMOTERS OF THE GROUP AND THEIR ASSOCIATES DUE TO SUCH CRIMINAL ACT IONS. 2. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE NON COMPLIANT AND HIGHLY NON CO-COOPERATIVE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE RE- ITA NO.- 2599/DEL/2016 WORLDWIDE REALTORS PVT. LTD. PAGE 3 OF 10 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AFTER THE REVISION ORDER PAS SED BY THE CIT U/ S 264 OF ACT. 3. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS SUBSTANTIALLY ERRED ON FACT S AND IN LAW IN CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE F ACT THAT THE ASSESSEE REMAINED NON COMPLIANT TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE INCOME T AX AUTHORITIES EVEN THOUGH AN AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE UNDERTAKING THAT NO NON- COMPLIANCE SHALL BE MADE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY T HE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. 4. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS SUBSTANTIALLY ERRED ON FACT S AND IN LAW IN CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL WITHOUT APPRECIATING AND CONSIDERING THE OBSERVATIONS OF HIS LD. PREDECESSOR WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESEE AGAINST THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(L)(B) OF THE ACT. 5. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS SUBSTANTIALLY ERRED ON FACT S AND IN LAW IN CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL IN RELYING UPON THE JUDIC IAL PRECEDENTS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE REFERRED JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS CALL FOR THE BONAFIDE CONDUCT AND NO NEGLIGENCE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS COMPLETELY ABSE NT IN THIS CASE. 6. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS SUBSTANTIALLY ERRED ON FACT S AND IN LAW IN CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL IN RELYING UPON THE JUDIC IAL PRECEDENTS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE REFERRED JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS CALL FOR THE BONAFIDE CONDUCT AND NO NEGLIGENCE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS COMPLETELY ABSE NT IN THIS CASE. 7. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MALAFIDE INTENT, ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION, NON COMPLIANT AND NON COOPERATIVE ATTITU DE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION AUTHORITIES AND DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AFTER THE REVISION ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT U/S 264 OF THE I T ACT, 1961. 8. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS SUBSTANTIALLY ERRED ON FACT S AND IN LAW IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE A SSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE REQUISITE DETAILS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EVEN THOUGH AN AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE, MR KUNDAN LA I UNDERTAKING THAT NO NON COMPLIANCE SHALL BE MADE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY T HE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. 9. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS SUBSTANTIALLY ERRED ON FACT S AND IN LAW IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT FALL UNDER ANY OF THE FOUR EXCEPTIONS GIVEN UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULE, 1962. 10. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS SUBSTANTIALLY ERRED ON FAC TS AND IN LAW IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE R ELEVANT DETAILS AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT FILED EVEN WHEN MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE T O FILE REQUISITE DETAILS/DOCUMENTS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS. 11. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN HOLDING THAT THE AO COULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED TO FRAME ASSESSMENT U/S 15 3A IN ABSENCE OF ITA NO.- 2599/DEL/2016 WORLDWIDE REALTORS PVT. LTD. PAGE 4 OF 10 INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FAC T THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 153A OF THE I.T. ACT PROVIDES FOR ASSESSMENT AND RE ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE DOES NOT CONFINE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMEN T TO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS ONLY. 12. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN WRONGLY APPRECIATING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153A OF THE I.T. ACT WHICH CLE ARLY PROVIDES FOR ASSESSMENT AND REASSESSMENT OF TOTAL INCOME AND DOES NOT RESTRICT THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT ONLY TO THE DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING SEARCH. 13. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DEL ETING THE ADDITION OF RS.23,435/-MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE 8S GENERAL EXPENSES. 14. THE CIT(A), BEING A FACT FINDING AUTHORITY, HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT INDEPEN DENTLY VERIFYING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AS MANDATED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING (375ITR 373). 15. (A) THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT (APPEALS) IS ERRON EOUS AND NOT TENABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. (B) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AM END ANY/ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARI NG OF THE APPEAL. ITA NO.- 2600/DEL/2016 1. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS SUBSTANTIALLY ERRED ON FAC TS AND IN LAW IN CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE I LLEGAL CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE SEARCH OPERATIONS INCLUDING MANHANDLING THE SEA RCH OFFICERS, LOOTING OF SEIZED MATERIAL AND REGISTRATION OF CRIMINAL CASES AGAINST THE PROMOTERS OF THE GROUP AND THEIR ASSOCIATES DUE TO SUCH CRIMINAL ACTIONS. 2. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS SUBSTANTIALLY ERRED ON FACT S AND IN LAW IN CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING WITHO UT CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REMAINED COMPLETELY NON COMPLIANT AND NON COOPERATI VE EVEN AFTER THE SEARCH AND HAD NOT FILED ANY DETAILS BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION AUTHORITIES. 3. THAT THE CIT (A] HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE NON COMPLIANT AND HI GHLY NON CO-COOPERATIVE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS AND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AFTER THE REVISION ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT U/S 264 OF ACT. 4. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS SUBSTANTIALLY ERRED ON FACT S AND IN LAW IN CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE F ACT THAT THE ASSESSEE REMAINED NON COMPLIANT TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX A UTHORITIES EVEN THOUGH AN AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE UNDERTAKING THAT NO NON COMPLIANCE SHALL BE MADE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE INCOME T AX AUTHORITIES. 5. THAT THE CIT (A] HAS SUBSTANTIALLY ERRED ON FACT S AND IN LAW IN CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL WITHOUT APPRECIATING AND CONSIDERING THE OBSERVATIONS OF HIS LD. PREDECESSOR (SPECIFICALLY UNDER PARA 8.4 OF THE ORDER) WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESEE AGAINST THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SE CTION 271(L)(B) OF THE ACT ITA NO.- 2599/DEL/2016 WORLDWIDE REALTORS PVT. LTD. PAGE 5 OF 10 6. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS SUBSTANTIALLY ERRED ON FACT S AND IN LAW IN CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL IN RELYING UPON THE JUDIC IAL PRECEDENTS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE REFERRED JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS CALL FOR THE BONAFIDE CONDUCT AND NO NEGLIGENCE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS COMPLETELY ABSENT IN THIS CAS E. 7. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MALAFIDE INTENT, ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION, NON COMPLIANT AND NON COOPERATIVE ATTITU DE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION AUTHORITIES AND DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AFTER THE REVISION ORDER PAS SED BY THE LD CIT U/S 264 OF THE IT ACT,1961. 8. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS SUBSTANTIALLY ERRED ON FACT S AND IN LAW IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE REQUISITE DETAILS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EVEN THOUGH AN AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE, MR KUNDAN LAI UNDERTAKING THAT NO NON COMPLIANCE SHALL BE MADE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX AUTHOR ITIES. 9. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS SUBSTANTIALLY ERRED ON FACT S AND IN LAW IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FALL UNDER ANY OF THE FOUR EXCEPTIONS GIVEN UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX R ULE, 1962. 10. THAT THE CIT (A] HAS SUBSTANTIALLY ERRED ON FA CTS AND IN LAW IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE RELEVANT DETA ILS AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT FILED EVEN WHEN MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE REQUISITE DETAIL S/DOCUMENTS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 11. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN HOLDING THAT THE AO COULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED TO FRAME ASSESSMENT U/S 153A IN ABSENCE OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THE PROVISIO NS OF THE SECTION 153A OF THE I.T. ACT PROVIDES FOR ASSESSMENT AND REASSESSMENT OF TOT AL INCOME OF ASSESSEE DOES NOT CONFINE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT TO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS ONLY. 12. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN WRONGLY APPRECIATING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153A OF THE I.T. ACT WHICH CLE ARLY PROVIDES FOR ASSESSMENT AND REASSESSMENT OF TOTAL INCOME AND DOES NOT RESTRICT THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT ONLY TO THE DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING SEARCH. 13. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT (A] HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,00,000/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 14. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD.CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 97,469/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES. 15. THE CIT(A), BEING A FACT FINDING AUTHORITY, HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT INDEPEN DENTLY VERIFYING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AS MANDATED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING (375ITR 373). 16. (A) THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) IS ERRONEO US AND NOT TENABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. ITA NO.- 2599/DEL/2016 WORLDWIDE REALTORS PVT. LTD. PAGE 6 OF 10 (B) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AME ND ANY/ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING O F THE APPEAL. ITA NO.- 2602/DEL/2016 1. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS SUBSTANTIALLY ERRED ON FAC TS AND IN LAW IN CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL WITHOUT CON SIDERING THE ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE SEARCH OPERATIONS INCLUDING MANHANDLING THE SEARCH OFFICERS, LOOTING OF SEIZED MATERIAL AND REGISTRATI ON OF CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST THE PROMOTERS OF THE GROUP AND THEIR ASSOCIATES DUE TO SUCH CRIMINAL ACTIONS. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS SUBSTANTIALLY ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONDONING THE DEALY IN FILING THE APPEAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING WITHOUT CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REMAINED COMPLETELY NON COMPLAIN AND N ON COOPERATIVE EVEN AFTER THE SEARCH AND HAD NOT FILED NAY DETAILS BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION AUTHORITIES. 3. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE NON COMPLI ANT AND HIGHLY NON CO- COOPERATIVE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ORIG INAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AFTER THE REVISION ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT U/S 264 OF ACT. 4. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS SUBSTANTIALLY ERRED ON FAC TS AND IN LAW IN CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL WITHOUT CON SIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE REMAINED NON COMPLIANT TO THE NOTICES ISSU ED BY THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES EVEN THOUGH AN AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BY T HE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE UNDERTAKING THAT NO NON- COMPLIANCE SHALL BE MADE T O THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. 5. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS SUBSTANTIALLY ERRED ON FAC TS AND IN LAW IN CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL WITHOUT APP RECIATING AND CONSIDERING THE OBSERVATIONS OF HIS LD. PREDECESSOR WHILE DISMISSIN G THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESEE AGAINST THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(L)(B) OF THE ACT. 6. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS SUBSTANTIALLY ERRED ON FAC TS AND IN LAW IN CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL IN RELYING UPON THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE REFERRED JUDICIAL PRE CEDENTS CALL FOR THE BONAFIDE CONDUCT AND NO NEGLIGENCE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS COMPLETELY ABSENT IN THIS CASE. 7. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MALAFIDE INTENT , ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION, NON COMPLIANT AND NON COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION A UTHORITIES AND DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS AFTER THE REVISION ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT U/S 264 OF THE I T ACT, 1961. 8. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS SUBSTANTIALLY ERRED ON FAC TS AND IN LAW IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ITA NO.- 2599/DEL/2016 WORLDWIDE REALTORS PVT. LTD. PAGE 7 OF 10 THE REQUISITE DETAILS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS EVEN THOUGH AN AFIDAVIT WAS FILED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESS EE, MR KUNDAN LAI UNDERTAKING THAT NO NON COMPLIANCE SHALL BE MADE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. 9. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS SUBSTANTIALLY ERRED ON FAC TS AND IN LAW IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FALL UNDER ANY OF THE FOUR EXCEPTIONS GIVEN UNDER R ULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULE, 1962. 10. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS SUBSTANTIALLY ERRED ON FAC TS AND IN LAW IN ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURIN G THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE R ELEVANT DETAILS AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT FILED EVEN WHEN MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE T O FILE REQUISITE DETAILS/DOCUMENTS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS. 11. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN HOLDING THAT THE AO COULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED TO FRAME ASSESSMENT U/S 15 3A IN ABSENCE OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FAC T THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 153A OF THE I.T. ACT PROVIDES FOR ASSESSMENT AND RE ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE DOES NOT CONFINE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESS MENT TO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS ONLY. 12. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN WRONGLY APPRECIATING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153A OF THE I.T. ACT WHICH CLEARLY PROVIDES FOR ASSESSMENT AND REASSESSMENT OF TOTAL INCOME AND DOE S NOT RESTRICT THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT ONLY TO THE DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED D URING SEARCH. 13. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, HE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,00,000/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED ADVANCE. 14. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 40,00,000/- MAD E BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ENTRIES. 15. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 26,50,000/- MAD E BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN BANK ACCOUNT. 16. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 56,836/- MADE B Y THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES. 17 THE CIT(A), BEING A FACT FINDING AUTHORITY, HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT INDEPEN DENTLY VERIFYING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AS MANDATED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JANSAMPARK ADVERTISING (375ITR 373). 18. (A) THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS AND NOT TENABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. (B) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AME ND ANY/ ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING O F THE APPEAL. ITA NO.- 2599/DEL/2016 WORLDWIDE REALTORS PVT. LTD. PAGE 8 OF 10 (B) AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BRO UGHT TO OUR NOTICE, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THAT TAX EFFECT IN EACH OF THESE A PPEALS IS BELOW RS. 50,00,000/-. BOTH SIDES, [REPRESENTATIVES OF REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE S] WERE IN AGREEMENT, AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN EACH O F THESE APPEALS IS BELOW RS. 50,00,000/-. VIDE RECENT CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 17/2019 DATED 08.08.2019 READ WITH EARLIER CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 3 OF 2018, DATED 11.07.2018, MIN IMUM THRESHOLD LIMIT OF TAX EFFECT FOR FILING OF APPEALS BY REVENUE IN INCOME TAX APPE LLATE TRIBUNAL (ITAT, FOR SHORT) HAS BEEN ENHANCED TO RS. 50,00,000/-. IN A SUBSEQU ENT CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY CBDT VIDE F.NO. 279/MISC/M-93/2018-ITJ, DATED 20/08/2019 , IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED BY CBDT THAT THE AFORESAID REVISED MONETARY LIMIT IS ALSO A PPLICABLE TO ALL PENDING APPEALS IN ITAT HAVING REGARD TO THE AFORESAID, THE LD. CIT (D R) FOR REVENUE DID NOT PRESS THE APPEALS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEALS WERE NOT MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID CBDT CIRC ULARS DATED 08.08.2019 AND 11.07.2018; AND THE AFORESAID CLARIFICATION DATED 2 0.08.2019 ISSUED BY CBDT. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THESE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED AND ALSO BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE HAVING REGARD TO AFORESAID CBDT CIRCUL AR NO. 17/2019 DATED 08.08.2019 READ WITH AFORESAID CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 3 OF 2018 IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID CLARIFICATION DATED 20/08/2019. (C) BEFORE LEAVING, WE CLARIFY THAT REVENUE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO APPROACH INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL U/S 254(2) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; SEEKING RESTORATION OF ONE OR MORE OF THESE APPEAL(S) IF IT IS FOUND THAT ANY APPEAL(S) ITA NO.- 2599/DEL/2016 WORLDWIDE REALTORS PVT. LTD. PAGE 9 OF 10 OF REVENUE ARE/ IS NOT COVERED BY AFORESAID CBDT C IRCULARS DATED 08.08.2019 AND 11.07.2018. (D) IN THE RESULT, THREE APPEALS BY REVENUE ARE DISMISS ED. OUR DECISION WAS ORALLY PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HE ARING ON THE DATE OF HEARING. NOW, THIS WRITTEN ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 0 4/10/19. SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (ANADEE NATH MIS SHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER DATED: 04/10/19 POOJA/- COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI ITA NO.- 2599/DEL/2016 WORLDWIDE REALTORS PVT. LTD. PAGE 10 OF 10 DATE OF DICTATION DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
1:1 Consultation on FEMA Compliance
₹1
1:1 Consultation on Startup Compliance
₹1
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹0
Startup Dissolution Resolution
₹0
Initial LLP Agreement
₹0
Finance Bill, 2026: Key Direct Tax Amendments on Assessments and Appeals
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
SEBI Resets Mutual Fund Rules: A Structural Shift for Investors
Team Counselvise - March 13, 2026