ACIT, New Delhi V. Westland Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

MA 752/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4929 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY BHAGWANI
• Keywords: Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO.752/DEL/2017 (in ITA No.1752/Del./2013) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) ACIT, Central Circle 23, vs. Westland Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AAACW1093J) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ajay Bhagwani, CA APPLICANT/REVENUE BY: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 25.03.2022 Date of Order : 25.03.2022 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM In the aforesaid misc. Application filed by the Revenue, it has been stated as under :- “3. The decision of the Hon'ble ITAT is not acceptable, as the ITAT did not examine the terms of collaboration agreement and facts of the case. The assessee wrongly pleaded in the case of 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 2 MA No.752/Del/2017 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.” 2. First of all, in this case, assessment was completed under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and there is categorical finding that no incriminating material was found qua the additions made and moreover no seized documents was pertained to this assessment year. This has been observed in paras 10, 10.1 & 10.2 of ITAT order. Thus, there is no mistake apparent on record which is to be rectifiable within the scope of section 254(2) of the Act and accordingly, the present misc. application is dismissed. Sd/- sd/- (ANIL KUMAR CHATURVEDI) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 25.03.2022 TS Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(A). 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.