Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4930 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
4 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
24-03-2022
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2006-2007
Appeal Filed On
06-02-2018
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO.83/DEL/2018 (in ITA No.6303/Del./2013) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) ACIT, Central Circle 23, vs. Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AAACC3536A) (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 and did not consider the incrimination documents seized during the search operation. The Hon'ble ITAT has put its reliance on the decision of the ITAT order ITA No. 1752/Del/2013 dated 16.07.2015 in the case of M/s Westland Developers Pvt. Ltd., for the A.Y. 2006-07 and ITA No. 1674/Del/2013 and 1765/Del/2013 dated 3l.10.2014 In the case of M/s IAG Promoter & Developers (P) Ltd., for the A.Y. 2008-09. 4. The Hon'ble ITAT did not examine the terms of collaboration agreement and facts of the case. The assessee has wrongly pleaded in 2 MA No.83/Del/2018 the case of Westland Developers Pvt. Ltd., that it was being paid Rs. 35,000 j - 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 by the assessee company, 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. 5. The Hon'ble ITAT wrongly upheld the order of the CIT(A) and concluded that the Revenue had no grievance as the CIT(A) did not delete the addition of the AO. The CIT(A), in fact, reduced the addition of the AO, wrongly holding that the interest was paid only on the extended period of cheques. 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.” 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 3 MA No.83/Del/2018 Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(A). 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.
