Gravity Developers P.Ltd, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-10(3), New Delhi

ITA 8052/DEL/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Gravity Developers P Ltd, the appellant, contesting the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer regarding the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and additions made under section 68 of the Act. The appellant argued that the reassessment was based on borrowed satisfaction and lacked independent inquiry, thus rendering it void ab initio. Additionally, the appellant contested the additions made as unexplained income and alleged improper handling of share application money. However, the appeal was ultimately dismissed following the settlement under the VSVS scheme.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 131054 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 17-11-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 68

Judgement Text

Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 8052/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Gravity Developers P Ltd, E-464, 1 st Floor, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi Vs ITO, Ward010(3), New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCC5967D Assessee by : Sh. None Revenue by : Sh. Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 18.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 18.11.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-4, New Delhi dated 02.11.2018. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 2nd November’2018 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’] is without judicious appreciation of the facts and positon in law, and thus, erroneous insofar as the same upholds the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer [‘AO’]. Page | 2 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the validity of initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’] even when the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act in this case is bad in law and hence the reassessment proceedings are void ab initio. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the validity of initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act even when the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act in this case was based on borrowed satisfaction without any independent enquiry being conducted by the AO to form the belief that income had escaped assessment. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that there was no valid reason assigned by the AO in the purported 'reasons to believe' and the reasons recorded by the AO were based on conjectures and surmises. The proceedings so initiated were illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not considering that the reasons recorded in the case are merely based on suspicion and do not amount to reasons within the meaning of section 147 and hence, the reopening is bad in law and the assessment so framed deserves to be quashed. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- under section 68 of the Income Tax Act made by the AO treating it as the unexplained income of the Appellant without appreciating that the appellant was not confronted by any material used against it by the AO which is a gross violation of the rules of natural justice. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- under section 68 of the Income Tax Act made by the AO treating it as the unexplained income of the Appellant allegedly on the ground that the transactions involving receipt of Share Application Money by the Appellant are arranged Page | 3 transactions to introduce its own unaccounted money even when the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and the genuineness of the transaction. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs. 90,000/- on account of alleged commission paid by the Appellant during the relevant year under consideration, without appreciating that no such expenditure was ever incurred by the appellant nor any evidence was ever brought on record by the AO and the addition was made solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjecture” 3. The Assessee has filed Form No. 5 reflecting that tax arrears Rs. 3025349/- issued by Ld. Pr. CIT, Delhi dated 08.11.2021. In view of the settlement of the appeal by VSVS therefore, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 18/11/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Kul Bharat) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 18/11/2022 *Ajay Kumar Keot, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR