DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s Madhyam Housing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5113/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6277 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAMITA M BISWAS
• Assessee Lawyers: SWATI RANA
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 143(1); 73; 68; 132; 15

Judgement Text

DCIT VS. MADHYAM HOUSING PVT. LTD./ I.T.A.NO.5113/D EL/2016/A.Y.2010-11 PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . . /. I.T.A NO.5113/DEL/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 D CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, ROOM NO. 333 ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI. VS. MADHYAM HOUSING PVT. LTD. B-2/6, PLOT NO. 2, ASHOK NAGAR, DB GUPTA ROAD, NEAR FAIZ CHOWK, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI. PAN NO. AADCM7666G APPELLANT / RESPONDENT /REVENUE BY MS. PRAMITA M. BISWAS, CIT DR /ASSESSEE BY MS. SWATI RANA, ADV. / DATE OF HEARING: 11 .0 2 .20 20 /PRONOUNCEMENT ON 1 1 .0 2 .20 20 /O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. 1. THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-24, NEW DELHI DATED 29.07.2016 FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS CONDUCTED O N K-WORLD GROUP OF CASES ON 05.04.2012. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO COVERED U/S 132 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 15 3A OF THE ACT ISSUED ON 09.07.2014 SUBMITTED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 24.11. 2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 90,200/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REQ UISITE DETAILS BEFORE THE DCIT VS. MADHYAM HOUSING PVT. LTD./ I.T.A.NO.5113/D EL/2016/A.Y.2010-11 PAGE 2 OF 4 ASSESSING OFFICER. THE AO NOTED FROM THE DETAILS T HAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SHARE CAPITAL FROM 7 PARTIES IN A SUM OF R S. 2.07 CRORES. THE AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINE NESS OF THE TRANSACTION U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND, ACCORDINGLY, MADE ADDITION O F RS. 2.07 CRORES IN THE ORDER U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 3. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THAT DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND FOR MAK ING THE ABOVE ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA 380 ITR 5 73 AND OTHERS. THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND ISSUE IS COVERED IN JUDGMENT OF HONBL E DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA). FOLLOWING THE SA ME, LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT SINCE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THEREFORE, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE U/S 1 53A OF THE ACT OF THIS NATURE. THE ADDITION WAS, ACCORDINGLY, DELETED. 4. THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL CHALLENGED THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A) IN QUASHING THE ORDER U/S 153A OF THE ACT FO LLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KABUL CHAWL A (SUPRA). 5. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTI ES. 6. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTE D THAT SECTION 153A DOES NOT RESTRICT THE ASSESSMENT TO INCRIMINAT ING DOCUMENTS. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. DCIT VS. MADHYAM HOUSING PVT. LTD./ I.T.A.NO.5113/D EL/2016/A.Y.2010-11 PAGE 3 OF 4 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSION, WE DO NOT F IND ANY MERIT IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATE MENT OF FACTS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) HAS MENTIONED THAT ORIGINAL RETURN WAS F ILED ON 25.09.2010 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 83,685/- AND THE SAME W AS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. IT WOULD SHOW THAT THE RETURN W AS COMPLETED AND NO ASSESSMENT WAS PENDING FROM THE DATE OF THE SEARCH. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA (SUP RA) HELD THAT COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS CAN BE INTERFERED WITH BY TH E AO WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S 153A ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SOME INCRI MINATING MATERIAL UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH WERE NO T PRODUCED OR NOT ALREADY DISCLOSED OR MADE KNOWN IN THE COURSE OF OR IGINAL ASSESSMENT. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT FOLLOWING THE AFORESAI D DECISION TOOK THE SAME VIEW IN THE CASE OF MEETA GUTGUTIA 395 ITR 526 IN WHICH SLP OF THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN 96 TAXMANN.COM 468. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT F IND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2020 * KAVITA ARORA, SR. P.S. DCIT VS. MADHYAM HOUSING PVT. LTD./ I.T.A.NO.5113/D EL/2016/A.Y.2010-11 PAGE 4 OF 4 COPY OF ORDER SENT TO- ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A) / ITAT (DR)/GUARD FILE OF ITAT. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT: DELHI BENCHES-DELHI