9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- on account of alleged receipt of rent. 4. (a) The order of the CIT(Appeals) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on fact. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal." C.O No. 38/Del/2016 "1. That on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the I T Act, 1961. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case, the reasons recorded are mechanical and without independent application of mind and solely on the basis of letter from higher authority. 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case, the reopening is only on the basis of change of opinion as the original assessment was completed u/s 153C/143(3) and reopening is merely on account of re-appreciation of assessment record. 4. That on facts and circumstance of the case, there is no tangible material so as to justify the reopening of assessment u/s 147 and as such the reopening is illegal and without jurisdiction." 3. The original return was file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 16,42,68,528/- and Rs. 16,42,68,832/- on protective basis as the said income had already been assessed in the Assessment Year 2010-11. 4. Being aggrieved by the said assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that there was search in case of assessee on 29/04/2008 pursuant to which Assessing Officer initiated action u/s. 153 A. However, in the absence of any incriminating material having being found as a result of search, returned income was accepted vide assessment order u/s. 153A dtd. 29/12/2010. Subsequently, there was another search in the case of Lalit Modi (property dealer) on 19/06/2009 and based on Annexure A-l page 5 placed in the PB at page 120, AO initiated action u/s. 153C in the case of assessee. However, in the absence of any incriminating material or evidence of any document belonging to assessee which indicated any undisclosed income, proceedings u/s. 153C were completed at returned income vide assessment order dtd. 29/12/2011. The assessee purchased a property from M/s. Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd. vide registered sale deed dtd. 13/05/2009. However, based on seiz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case for any action u/s. 147 in the A.Y. 2007-08. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the order of the Assessing Officer is well within the ambit of law and the CIT(A) is right in holding that proceedings initiated u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act are legally sustainable. The CIT(A) finding in Para 10/Page 25 is very pertinent in this regard. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant records available before us. It is pertinent to note here that the Assessing Officer proceeded to make an addition on substantive basis to the tune of Rs. 16,42,68,528/- and Rs. 16,42,68,832/- on protective basis as the said income had already been assessed in the Assessment Year 2010-11. There was search in case of assessee on 29/04/2008 pursuant to which Assessing Officer initiated action u/s. 153A, but in the absence of any incriminating material, return of income was accepted vide assessment order u/s. 153A dtd. 29/12/2010. Subsequently, there was another search in the case of Lalit Modi (property dealer) on 19/06/2009 and based on Annexure A-l therein, the action u/s. 153C was initiated in the case of assessee. However, in the absence of any incriminating material or evidence of any d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion has been deleted in A.Y. 2010-11 by the Tribunal & confirmed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, there is no case for any action u/s. 147 in the A.Y. 2007-08. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under: "27. The Court is unable to accept the above submission of Mr. Shivpuri. The Court in this regard notices that the detailed interrogation of Mr. Modi revealed the source of the document and the fact that Mr. Modi was not the author of the document. Mr. Modi had suggested that it was some other broker who had given him the said document as a 'proposal'. There appears to have been no attempt made by the AO to enquire into the matter further to find out if at all there was any such other broker who had prepared the document. Further, there is no attempt also made to ascertain whether the prevalent market value of the space purchased by the Assessee could at all fetch the value indicated in the document which is Rs. 32,85,37,354/-. This was too fundamental an issue to be left un-investigated. The AO appears to have proceeded purely on conjectures as regards what the document has stated without noticing the internal contradictions and inconsistencies. For instance, the document talks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
