TARUN RADHAKRISHIN TAHILIANI,NEW DELHI V. PCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2323/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sh. Tarun Radhakrishin Tahiliani, the appellant, who contested the revision order by the PCIT concerning the assessment year 2013-14. The PCIT had proposed revisions based on deemed dividends, commission payments, and banking transactions exceeding Rs. 20,000. However, the Tribunal noted that the original assessment, which included a protective addition of Rs. 70 lakhs for property purchase, was based solely on specific seized material, and no additional material was presented to justify the PCIT's revisions. The Tribunal referenced the precedent set in PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212, emphasizing that any additions in unabated assessments should be made based on specific seized material only.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26165 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212, Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: GAURAV JAIN
• Keywords: Deemed dividend
• Section: 263; 153A; 2(22)(e)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2323/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sh. Tarun Radhakrishin Tahiliani, 1043, D/6, Ward No.-8, Mehrauli, New Delhi Vs. PCIT, New Delhi PAN:AAFPT0693R (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2023-24/1063487836(1), dated 27.03.2024 involving proceedings under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. Assessee by Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. Ms. Bharti Sharma, Adv. Department by Sh. Sunil Yadav, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 24.03.2025 Date of pronouncement 28.03.2025 ITA No.2323/Del/2024 2 | P a g e 3. We advert to the basic relevant facts. This assessee/appellant is admittedly assessed an individual. The departmental authorities had carried out a search in his case on 29.05.2018 leading to initiation of section 153A proceedings against him vide notice dated 30th March, 2020 which culminated in completion of section 153A assessment by the Assessing Officer on 04.05.2020, inter alia, making a “protective” addition of Rs.70 lakhs allegedly paid for purchase of immovable property at New Delhi. The assessee then filed his appeal before the CIT(A) on 26.05.2021 which is stated to be pending as on date. And that it was, thereafter on 28th February, 2023 that the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) has passed its order under section 245D(4) of the Act incase of M/s. Tahiliani Design Pvt. Ltd. accepting the additional income of Rs.1,12,50,000/- including the above cash sum amounting to Rs.70 lakhs which again has attained finality. 4. Both the parties next invite our attention to the PCIT’s section 263 show-cause notice dated 21.02.2024 proposing to exercise his revisional jurisdiction (pages 62 to 65) on the issue of 2(22)(e) deemed dividend of Rs.88,87,728/-, commission payment made to the broker of Rs.4,13,625/- and for having made transactions ITA No.2323/Del/2024 3 | P a g e exceeding Rs.20,000/-, respectively. What the learned PCIT has done in his final impugned revision order, is to reiterate his contents of the above show-cause notice after rejecting the appellant/assessee’s explanation, which leaves the latter aggrieved. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and Revenue’s vehement rival pleadings reiterating their respective stands. We find no reason to sustain the impugned revision directions. This is for the precise reason that as on the date of search i.e. 29.05.2018; the assessment year before us i.e. AY 2013- 14 involves an “unabated” assessment wherein any addition ought to be made based on the specific seized material only as per PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212. The Revenue could hardly pinpoint any specific seized material so far as the PCIT’s impugned proposal pertaining to deemed dividend, commission payments and banking transactions (supra) is concerned. This being the clinching case, we are of the considered view that the impugned section 153A assessment framed in the assessee’s case on 04.05.2021 could neither be termed as erroneous one nor that causing prejudice to the interest of the ITA No.2323/Del/2024 4 | P a g e revenue, in light of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC). We accordingly reverse the learned PCIT impugned revision direction in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th March, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28th March, 2025. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi "