ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. Smart Investment, New Delhi

ITA 4604/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7282 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 17-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VED JAINCA; ASHISH GOEL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC-3 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4604/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 ITO, WARD-34(3), NEW DELHI. VS. SMART INVESTMENT, A-17/18, X-123, TAGORE STREET, GANDHI NAGAR, NEW DELHI. PAN: ABFFS2157J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VED JAIN,CA & SHRI ASHISH GOEL, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.08.2016 ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 12.06.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. ITA NO.4604/DEL/2014 2 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN TH E REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 24.9.20 10 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.13,470/-. THE AO COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 22.3.2013, INTER ALIA, MAKING TWO ADDITIONS OF RS.8 ,54,369/- TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF WOOD AND RS. 30 LACS RECORDED AS SALES RETURNS. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY GRANTED RELIEF. AGGRIEVE D, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL ON BOTH THESE ISSUES. 3. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, I FIND THAT AT PARA 8 AND 9 OF THE LD.CIT(A)S ORDER, THE CLEAR FINDING OF FACT IS GIV EN. HE RECORDS THAT SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR, THE PURCHASER OF THE SECOND FLOOR H AD, IN HIS STATEMENT, STATED THAT WOOD WORK WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE SECOND FLOOR FLAT AFTER THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. AS R EGARDS GROUND FLOOR, WOOD WORK WAS ALSO CARRIED OUT AND WERE SHOWN AS SA LES RETURNS IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE CLOSING STOCK PARTICULA RS OF THE GROUND FLOOR FLAT WERE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM AT RS.32,90,15 0/- WHILE THE SALES RETURNS DECLARED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WAS O NLY RS.30 LACS. THE ITA NO.4604/DEL/2014 3 DIFFERENCE OF RS.2,90,150/- WAS THE VALUE OF WOOD W ORK. AT PARA 9, THE LD.CIT(A) RECORDED FACTUAL FINDING OF THE COST INCU RRED TOWARDS PURCHASE OF WOOD AND THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE CARPENTERS AND G RANTED PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS FACTUAL FINDING COULD NOT BE CO NTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR. THUS, WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THESE GRO UNDS OF THE REVENUE. 4. ON THE SECOND ADDITION OF RS.30 LACS, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY RECORDED THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THIS AS IN COME BEING SALES RETURNS AND, HENCE, MAKING AN ADDITION WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. I FULLY AGREE WITH THIS FINDING. THUS, WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE ALSO. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.08.20 16. SD/- [J. SUDHAKAR REDDY] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 31 ST AUGUST, 2016. ITA NO.4604/DEL/2014 4 DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.