DCIT, New Delhi V. Impower Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

MA 617/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4799 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY BHAGWANI
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.617/DEL/2018 (in ITA No.1074/Del./2015) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) DCIT, Central Circle 32, vs. Impower Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. (PAN : AACCI2039N) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ajay Bhagwani, CA APPLICANT/REVENUE BY: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 08.04.2022 Date of Order : 08.04.2022 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM In the aforesaid misc. Application, the applicant/Revenue has stated as under :- “3. The Hon'ble ITAT placed its reliance on the order of co- ordinate benches in the cases of M/s Westland Developers Pvt. Ltd., (ITA No. 1752/Del/2013 dated 22.08.2014) and M/s IAG Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1765/Del/2013 dated 31.1.2014). Revenue has already filed Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) in the following cases on the same issues involved in this case also: (a) M/s IAG Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. - A.Y. 2008-09. 2 MA No.617/Del/2018 (b) M/s Westland Developers Pvt. Ltd. - A.Y. 2006-07. (c) M/s K.A. Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. - A.Y. 2006-07. (d) M/s K.A. Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. - A.Y.2009-10. (e) M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. - A.Y. 2006-07. 4. In view of the above, the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT is not acceptable, as the ITAT may be examined the terms of collaboration agreement and facts of the case. The assessee wrongly pleaded in the case of M/s Westland Developers Pvt. Ltd., that is was being paid Rs.35,000/- per acre as reimbursement expenses by Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd (Collaborate & flagship concern of BPTP) and addition was deleted as no claim of expenditure was filed by the assessee. A similar plea has been taken in Countrywide Promoters, which is a misrepresentation of the facts. The entire group of BPTP has evaded the clutches of the Department by managing favorable Judgment from the Appellate Authorities. This is despite the fact that several incriminating documents were seized during the search and have been discussed at length in the order of the AO. 6. During the Search and Seizure operation in the group of BPTP several incriminating documents were seized by the Department and the Hon'ble ITAT may decide the issues in this matter after examination of the seized material on record. The Hon'ble ITAT is the final fact-finding authority and was required to go into the reasons for additional payments made to the venders. 7. In view of the above, it is therefore earnestly requested to accept the Misc. Application on the issue of 1. Addition on account of Interest paid to Vendors on Post Dated Cheques (PDCs), and 2. On account of Disallowance of Additional Payment, in the due interest of justice.” 2. First of all, there is no error or mistake apparent on record which can be rectifiable under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). It has been stated that various misc. applications have been filed and same issue was raised in various cases, however 3 MA No.617/Del/2018 most of the misc. applications have been dismissed. Nowhere either in the assessment order or in appellate order, there is any finding or observation based on any incriminating material and to put a blanket blame that the entire group of BPTP has evaded the clutches of the department by managing favourable judgment from the appellate authorities, is an allegation which cannot be entertained and is completely baseless as the findings given are based on material placed on record. Accordingly, the misc. application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Sd/- sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 08.04.2022 TS Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(A). 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.