DCIT, Jaipur V. GANESHAM VINAYAK ESTATE PVT. LTD., Jaipur

ITA 482/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99541 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PURSHOTTAM KASHYAP CIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: MRIDUL GOYAL
• Keywords: Documents seized

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KN O] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YA DAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 482/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 JAIPUR CUKE VS. M/S. GANESHAM VINAYAK ESTATE (P) LTD. B-304, JANTA COLONY JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AAGFG 2978 K VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 483/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 JAIPUR CUKE VS. M/S. JAIPUR HILTON BUILDESTATE (P) LTD. B-304, JANTA COLONY JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AABCJ 6998A VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 484/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 JAIPUR CUKE VS. SHRI ARUN KUMAR LASHKARY B-304, JANTA COLONY JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: ABVPL 0192L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 485/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 JAIPUR CUKE VS. M/S. P.L. ESTATE (P) LTD. B-304, JANTA COLONY JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AADCP 3306 L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT ITA NO. 482/JP/2014 THE DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 VS. M/S. GANESHAM VINA YAK ESTATE (P) LTD. , JAIPUR 2 FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY GOYAL, CA AND SHRI MRIDUL GOYAL, ADVOCATE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY: SHRI PURSHOTTAM KASHYAP, ADDL. CIT LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 9/11/2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 /11/2015 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE RELATING TO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST SEPARATE O RDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A), CENTRAL, JAIPUR ON THE GROUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) H AS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO FOR UNDISCLOSED / UNEXPLAIN ED INVESTMENT AS PER DETAILS ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO. NAME OF THE ASSESSEE A.Y. AMOUNT RELATING TO ADDITON DATE OF LD. CIT(A)S CENTRAL ORDER 482/JP/2014 M/S. GANESHAM VINAYAK ESTATE (P) LTD. 2005-06 41,11,199/- 07-04-2014 483/JP/2014 M/S. JAIPUR HILTON BUILDESTATE (P) LTD. 2006-07 88,44,242-/ 07-04-2014 484/JP/2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR LASHKARY 2007-08 18,99,750/- 01-04-2004 485/JP/2014 M/S. P.L. ESTATE (P) LTD. 2005-06 3,09 ,74,910 04-04-2004 SINCE COMMON ISSUES HAVING IDENTICAL FACTS ARE INVO LVED IN THESE APPEALS WHICH WERE HEARD TOGETHER, SO ALL THESE CASES ARE B EING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE . ITA NO. 482/JP/2014 THE DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 VS. M/S. GANESHAM VINA YAK ESTATE (P) LTD. , JAIPUR 3 2.1 THE GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT IN ALL THE APPE ALS RELATE TO DELETION OF ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS O F THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CARRIED ON 6-08- 2008 IN THE CASES OF PAWAN LASHKERY GROUP (I.E. PAGE NO. 37 OF ANNEXURE A-57). 2.2 AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE MA TTER IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 22-06-2 012 IN ITA NO. 962/JP/2011 IN CASE OF M/S. RISING BUILDESTATE (P) LTD. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS BY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT WHEREIN ON THE BASIS OF T HE SAME DOCUMENTS, THE ADDITION WAS MADE. FURTHER IT WAS STATED THAT H ON'BLE ITAT IN ITS SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS IN THE CASES OF COUNTRYWISE BU ILDESTATE (P) LTD. , FUTURE BUILESTATES (P) LTD. AND INTEGRATED BUILDEST ATES (P) LTD. HAS FOLLOWED THE EARLIER DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT IN T HE CASE OF RISING BUILDESTATES (P) LTD. GIVEN, THAT THE ADDITIONS HAV E BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF SAME DOCUMENT AND ON THE SAME FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THESE CASES SHOULD BE D ELETED AS THE SAME IS COVERED BY THE EARLIER DECISIONS OF COORDINATE BENC H. ITA NO. 482/JP/2014 THE DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 VS. M/S. GANESHAM VINA YAK ESTATE (P) LTD. , JAIPUR 4 2.3 THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR. HOWEVER, HE SUPPORTED T HE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO. 2.4 THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ABOVE ADDITIONS MAD E IN ALL THE APPEALS OF ABOVE ASSESSEES BY OBSERVING AS UNDER- I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE A.R. AND ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT IN THE RELATED CASES OF THE GROUP. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF RISING BUILDESTATE (P) LTD. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, ITA NO. 962/JP/2011 DATED 22-06- 2012 AND IN THE CASE OF M/S. DCIT VS. COUNTRYWIDE BUILDESTATE (P) LTD. FOR A.Y. 2007-08 ITA NO. 961/J P/2011 DATED 29-06-2012, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ORDER OF CIT (A) GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME ISSUE H AS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE ITAT . SINCE, IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME MARKED AS PAGE 3 7 OF EXH. ANNEX. A-57 AND HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE CONSISTENT FINDING OF HON'BLE ITAT MADE IN THE RELATED CASES ON THE B ASIS OF THIS PAPER, I FIND THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS COVERED BY THE FINDING OF THE HON'BLE ITAT ON SAME FACTS I N THE CASE OF DCIT VS. RISING BUILDESTATE (P) LTD. AND DCIT VS . M/S. COUNTRYWISE BUILDESTATE (P) LTD. THEREFORE, THE ADD ITION U/S 69B OF RS. 41,11,199/- IS DELETED. 2.5 AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THA T SIMILAR ISSUE WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN ITA NO . 962/JP/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. M/S . RISING BUILDESTATE ITA NO. 482/JP/2014 THE DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 VS. M/S. GANESHAM VINA YAK ESTATE (P) LTD. , JAIPUR 5 (P) LTD. WHEREIN SIMILAR ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME DOCUMENTS I.E. PAGE NO. 37 OF ANNEXURE A-57 WAS DELETED BY THE COO RDINATE BENCH OF ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 22-06-2012. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN PARA 8 TO 8.2 OF ITS ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 8. AS STATED ABOVE, NEITHER THESE FINDINGS COULD BE CONTROVERTED NOR ANY OTHER MATERIAL WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD WHICH CAN BE SAID THAT FINDINGS OF LD. CIT (A) ARE NOT CORRECT. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERAT ION THE ASPECT THAT FIRSTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICERS VIEW WA S THAT THE COST OF LAND WAS RS. 4.55 CRORE OR ODD. THREE SHO W CAUSE NOTICES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPLAINING T HAT WHY THE COST OF THE LAND BE NOT TAKEN AT RS. 4.50 CRORE OR ODD. ALL THE THREE TIMES, THE EXPLANATION WAS FILED AND THE AO WAS SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION. THEREFORE, THE A.O. HAS NOT TAKEN THE COST OF INVESTMENT AT RS. 4.50 CRORE OR O DD. HOWEVER, AS PER COLUMN NO. 4 OF PAGE 37 OF EXHIBIT A-57 WHICH WAS SEIZED FROM 73-75, TALKOTRA, JAIPUR WHERE FIGURE OF 400 WAS MENTIONED, THE AO TOOK THIS VALUE AS COS T OF INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. CONTENTS OF PAGE 37 OF ANNEXURE A-57 HAS BEEN TABULATED IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) AT PAGE 4 WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN REPRODUCED SOMEWHERE ABOVE IN T HIS ORDER WHILE INCORPORATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. N EITHER THE AO COULD CO-RELATE THE FIGURE OF 22.5 MENTIONED IN THE COLUMN NO. 1 NOR THE FIGURE MENTIONED IN COLUMN NO. 3 AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE A PRE SUMPTION THAT FIGURE OF 400 MENTIONED IN COLUMN NO. 4 IS FIG URE OF COST OF LAND PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE. THERE MUST BE SOME CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO HOLD THAT THIS FIGURE IS RELATED TO COST OF THE LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE NOT REPEATING THE EXPLANATION/FINDINGS OF LD. CIT (A) A S FINDING OF LD. CIT (A) IN ITS ENTIRETY HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE ABOVE PARA OF THIS ORDER. HOWEVER, AS STATED ABOVE , THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT (A), IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, AR E FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. ITA NO. 482/JP/2014 THE DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 VS. M/S. GANESHAM VINA YAK ESTATE (P) LTD. , JAIPUR 6 8.1. THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO FOUND THAT THE CASES RELI ED UPON BY AO WERE NOT RELEVANT ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WHEREAS CASES RELIED UPON BY LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASS ESSEE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE. THE RATIO OF ALL THESE CA SES HAVE ALSO BEEN REPRODUCED SOMEWHERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT ( A) WHICH IS ALSO PART OF THIS ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE A BOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE FIND INGS OF LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY AO BY HOLDING THAT HE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL TO MAKE ANY AD DITION UNDER SECTION 69B. 8.2. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND I N VIEW OF THE DETAILED REASONING GIVEN BY LD. CIT (A) WHIC H IS REPRODUCED SOMEWHERE ABOVE IN THIS ORDER, WE HOLD T HAT LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM HIS ORDER . 2.6 SINCE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILA R TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE AFORESAID CASE OF DCIT VS. M/S. RISING BUILD ESTATE (P) LTD. (SUPRA), SO RESPECTFULLY THE AFORESAID DECISION DATED 22-06- 2012 IN ITA NO. 962/JP/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IN THE CASE OF M/S. RISING BUILDESTATE (P) LTD. (SUPRA),, WE DO NOT FIND ANY I NFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A). IT SHOULD BE NOT ED THAT THE FACTS IN EACH OF THE SUBJECT APPEALS ARE SIMILAR EXCEPT FOR THE QUANTUM OF ADDITION WHICH HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO IN EACH OF THE CASES. THEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS GIVEN ABOVE SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS I N ALL THE CASES. HENCE, THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY REVENUE IN EACH OF THE FOUR AP PEALS ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 482/JP/2014 THE DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2 VS. M/S. GANESHAM VINA YAK ESTATE (P) LTD. , JAIPUR 7 3.0 IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE A RE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/11/2015 . SD/- SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH FOE FLAG ;KNO (R.P.TOLANI) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 30 /11/ 2015 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- M/S. GANESHAM VINAYAK ESTATE (P) LTD., M/S. JAIPUR HILTON BUILDESTATE (P) LTD. SH RI ARUN KUMAR LASHKARY AND M/S. P.L. ESTATE (P) LTD. B-304, JANTA COLONY 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, JAI PUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY ) @ CIT(A) 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.482/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR