OMNIBUS HEALTHCARE INDIA PVT. LTD.,MEERUT V. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

ITA 664/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Omnibus Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, challenging the addition of Rs. 6,61,86,825 as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This investment was related to the construction of a commercial property in Meerut for the period from April 1, 2014, to March 31, 2017. The Assessing Officer had estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 2,05,83,500, significantly higher than the Rs. 44,44,745 reported by the assessee. The CIT(A) reduced this valuation to Rs. 1,30,90,027, which the assessee contested. The Tribunal's decision to further reduce this amount to Rs. 1,00,00,000 was based on the inappropriate application of valuation rates and the failure to consider certain deductions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26136 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 25-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B.S. ANAND
• Assessee Lawyers: VED JAIN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.664/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Omnibus Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd., Plot-1, Phase-2, Meerut Bypass, Meerut Cantt, Ansal Town, Meerut Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut PAN :AACCO0534A (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)-NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059017134(1), dated 22.12.2023 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. Assessee by Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Sh. Auyush Garg, CA Department by Sh. B.S. Anand, Sr. DR Date of hearing 25.11.2024 Date of pronouncement 02.12.2024 ITA No.664/Del/2024 2 | P a g e 3. Learned counsel representing assessee, submits that the sole substantive issue, which arises for our adjudication is that our correctness of section 69 unexplained investment addition made by the Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs.6,61,86,825/- representing investment made in construction of a commercial property situated at Ansal Town, village Jitaoli, Pargana, Daurala, Tehsil Sardana, District Meerut, Uttar Pradesh for the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2017 4. It emerges from a perusal of the assessment discussion at page 4 that the assessee had admitted his foregoing cost of construction Rs.44,44,745/- as against that estimated by the Valuation Officer, Meerut to the tune of Rs.2,05,83,500/- pertaining to financial year 2016-17 for assessment year 2017-18. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in para 7 page 94 in turn has restricted the said valuation from Rs.2,05,83,500/- to Rs.1,30,90,027/- only which leaves the assessee aggrieved. 5. It is in this factual backdrop that the learned counsel representing assessee has raised his twin arguments that the impugned valuation itself is based on CPWD than State’s PWD rates and both the lower authorities have nowhere granted ITA No.664/Del/2024 3 | P a g e supervision charges’ deduction @ 10%. The Revenue could hardly dispute the fact that although the learned lower authorities have nowhere considered the twin foregoing aspects and at the same time, it is a settled principle that a valuation indeed involves estimation only wherein certain distressing factors in assessee’s favour could not be altogether ruled out. We, therefore, deem it appropriate in these peculiar facts and circumstances that the foregoing cost of investment of Rs.1,30,90,027/- deserves to be further reduced to a lump sum figure of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case. The assessee gets relief of Rs.30,90,027/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 6. No other grounds or arguments have been pressed before us. 7. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd December, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 2nd December, 2024. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delh "