IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND S MT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6139 / DEL/201 3 AY: 200 9 - 10 DCIT, CIRCLE 9(1) VS. SH. NAVNEET KAPOOR ROOM NO.163 C 5/50, GRAND VASANT KUNJ C.R.BDLG. , N.DELHI NEW DELHI PAN: AANPK 8654 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. P.DAMKANUNJNA, SR.D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SH. SUMIT NAGPAL, ADV. ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - XII , NEW DELHI DT. 8.8. 2013 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2009 - 10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND. 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AMOUNTING TO RS.50,00,000/ - U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) . 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE A RE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND H AS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.9.2009 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.7,44,900/ - . ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(1) OF THE A CT. ORDERS UNDER SECTION 147 R EAD WITH SECTION 143 (3) OF THE A CT WAS PASSED ON 21.3.2013 MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.50,00,000/ - BY OBSERVI NG AS FOLLOWS . ITA 6139/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2009 - 10 SH.NAVNEET KAPOOR, N.DELHI 2 4. ON RECEIPT OF THE ABOVE REASONS, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS SUBMISSIONS DT. 18.2.2013 WHICH HAS BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT ACCEPTABLE. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE SAID FACT WAS CONSIDERED DURING ASSESSMENT. HENCE AN AMOUNT OF RS.50,00,000/ - IS ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SOURCE OF INCOME IS NOT ESTABLISHED. 3. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE EDITION BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS : I HAVE CONSIDERED THE GROUNDS RAISED IN APPEAL AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSION FILED BY THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE COMPANY TO THE DIRECTOR WAS FOR PURCHASE OF COMPANY PROPERTY AND IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF ANY OTHER ADVANCE OR LOAN. THUS THE PROVISIONS OF S.2(22)(E) ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRA ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING OF THE COMPANY OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN IT WAS DECIDED TO ACQUIRE SOME PROPERTIES A ND FOR THAT THE AMOUNT WAS GIVEN TO DIRECTOR FOR NEGOTIATING THE ACQUISITION, WHICH AMOUNT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY GIVEN BACK TO THE COMPANY WHEN THE TRANSACTION DID NOT MATERIALISE. IN VIEW OF THIS THE SAID AMOUNT IS NOT COVERED U/S 2(22)(E). ACCORDINGLY THE A DDITION OF RS.50,00,000/ - IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 4. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS WE FIND THAT THE LD.D.R. COULD NOT CONT ROVERT WITH EVIDENCE THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTIO N WAS GIVEN TO THE DIRECTOR FOR NEGOTIATING THE ACQUISITION OF SOME PROPERTIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE COMPANY AND THAT T HE AMOUNT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY GIVEN BACK TO THE COMPANY WHEN THE TRANSACTION DID NOT MATERIALISE. IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRARY EVIDENCE DISPU TING THIS FACTUAL FINDINGS, WE HAVE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE BUT TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED ITA 6139/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2009 - 10 SH.NAVNEET KAPOOR, N.DELHI 3 5 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01 ST MARCH , 2016 . SD/ - SD/ - ( BEENA PILLAI ) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 01 ST MARCH , 2016 MANGA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR, ITAT - TRUE COPY - BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR