ACIT, Central Circle- 18, New Delhi V. Utech Developers Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6336/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0373 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AGAINST TH E DATED PASSED
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] ITA NO.6336/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI VS. M/S. UTECH DEVELOPERS LTD., 305, 3 RD FLOOR, BHANOT CORNER, PAMPOST ENCLAVE, GK-I, NEW DELHI PAN :AAACU8713H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 29/08/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) - 29, NEW DELHI [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A)] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE EXPENSES WERE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS NO REVENUE RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOU NT DURING THE APPELLANT BY SH. H.K. CHOUDHARY, CIT(DR) RESPONDENT BY SH. M.P. RASTOGI, ADV. DATE OF HEARING 08.07.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16.07.2021 2 ITA NO.6336/DEL/2017 YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE UTILIZATION OF BORROWED FUNDS AND THE BUSINESS ACTI VITY OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDIC E TO EACH OTHER. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR FORGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES ON T HE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON REC ORD. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OBSERV ING AS UNDER : 6.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, SUBMISSION OF APPELLANT AND PERUSED THE ORIGINAL AS SESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3)/ORDER OF THE THEN CIT(A )-29, DELHI DATED 23.03.2016 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO UNDER SEC TION 153A R.W.S.L43(3) OF THE IT ACT. I FIND THAT THERE WAS N O ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS/DETAILS FOUND DURI NG THE SEARCH ACTION CARRIED OUT UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE IT ACT. FURTHER, THE AO REPEATED THE SAME ADDITIONS AS MADE IN THE ORDER PA SSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE IT ACT. I FURTHER FIND THAT O N THOSE ADDITIONS THE THEN CIT(A)-29, DELHI HAD PASSED THE APPELLATE ORDE R AND HAD GIVEN RELIEF ON ALL THE GROUNDS AND ACCORDINGLY ALL THE A DDITIONS MADE BY THE AO WERE DELETED. THEREBY, IT IS OBSERVED THAT T HE ORDER OF THE AO PASSED UNDER SECTION 153A/143(3) RESULTED INTO THE SAME SECTION 143(3) AND SECOND IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THERE IS NO ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS/DETAILS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTION CA RRIED OUT UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE IT ACT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCE S AND IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE SAME ADDITIONS HAD BEEN MADE BY THE AO IN THE ORIGINAL A SSESSMENT ORDER, THEREFORE, MAKING AGAIN ADDITIONS ON THE SAM E ISSUES OF THE SAME AMOUNT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. FURTHER, I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE APPELLATE ORDER OF MY PREDECESSOR AND I AGREE WITH THE DECISION TAKEN BY HIM ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED, THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE BY HIM OF RS.2,73,209/- A ND RS.5,35,90,353/- RESPECTIVELY. 3. THUS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION, ADDITION IN DISPUTE WERE MADE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSES SMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 3 ITA NO.6336/DEL/2017 THE ACT). THEREAFTER, CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH ACTION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WERE COMMENCED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY REIT ERATED THE SAME ADDITIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEGAN COMPUTA TION FROM THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND REPEATED TH E AMOUNT OF ADDITION MADE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. THU S, IN NUTSHELL, THERE IS NO NEW ADDITIONS HAS BEEN MADE I N THE 153A PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 4. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH JULY, 2021. SD/- SD/- (KULDIP SINGH) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 16 TH JULY, 2021. RK/- (DTDC) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI