ACIT, New Delhi V. Shri Nitin Aggarwal, New Delhi

ITA 298/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0159 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 23-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BANITA DEVI NAORAM SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: SAKSHI GUPTA C AS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.298/DEL./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) ACIT, CIRCLE 32 (1), VS. SHRI NITIN AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI. M 1, NDSE II, NEW DELHI. (PAN : AAGPA4827P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.K. GUPTA & MS. SAKSHI GUPTA, C AS REVENUE BY : MS.BANITA DEVI NAORAM, SENIOR DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS)-XXVI, NEW DELHI DATED 18.10.2010. THE GROUND OF APPEAL T AKEN BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER :- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD . CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,70,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY PURCHASED IN U.K. BY THE ASSESSE E DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE CLOSING STOCK BU T WAS SHOWN AS ADVANCE FOR LAND AND SOURCES OF INVESTMENT IN THE P ROPERTY WERE NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS REGARDI NG DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.10,70,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY PUR CHASED IN U.K. BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE INC LUDED THIS IN THE CLOSING STOCK BUT IT HAS BEEN SHOWN AS ADVANCE FOR LAND. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THE ISSUE AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED TWO PROPERTIES IN JOINT OWNERSHIP IN U.K. WITH HIS BROTHER, SHRI MANISH ITA NO.298/DEL./2011 2 AGGARWAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE SAME IN THE B ALANCE SHEET UNDER THE HEAD ADVANCE U.K. LAND. THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY CHEQUE. THERE IS NO ALLEGATION THAT PAYMENTS ARE UNEXPLAINED. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ONLY CONTENTION WAS THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE CLOSING STOCK. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THIS WAS A PERSONAL ASSET AND NOT TO FORM THE PART OF THE CLOS ING STOCK. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS FIXED ASSETS. HOWEVER, THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT WAS NOT RECEIVED BEFORE THE FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE FACTS OF THE CASE SHOW THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE IN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF THE PROPERTY. THIS INVESTMENT WAS AL READY REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. HOWEVER, IT WAS SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD ADVANCE FOR U K LAND. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED IT AS A PERSONAL PROPERTY. IN VIEW OF THAT, IT SHA LL NOT FORM PART OF THE STOCK-IN-TRADE. FURTHER, EVEN IF IT IS TAKEN AS PART OF THE STOCK-I N-TRADE THEN ALSO IT HAS TO BE DEBITED IN THE PURCHASE ACCOUNT WHICH WILL INCREASE THE CORRESPOND ING PURCHASES AND NULLIFY THE EFFECT OF ADDITION IN THE CLOSING STOCK. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE FIND NO MERITS IN THE REVENUES APPEAL AND DISMISS THE REVENUES APPEAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF MARCH, 2011 AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 23 RD DAY OF MARCH, 2011/TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT (A)-XXVI, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.