9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2023 -NA- -NA- Cross Objection in ITA No.831/Del/2022 5. ITA No. 828/Del/2022 CIT(A)-27, New Delhi order dated 28.01.2022 Assessment order dated 27.12.2019 Assessment Order under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA No. 833/Del/2022- & CO-9/Del/2023- AY 2011-12-Sumit Mittal: 2. To begin with, we shall take up ITA No.833/Del/2022 and Cross Objection No.9/Del/2023 thereon for adjudication purposes. 3. The grounds raised by the Revenue reads as under: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,60,71,350/- made by AO on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in stating that the addition made by AO on account of unexplained investment/money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 is not sustainable and deserve to be deleted as the addition had been made during the regular course of assessment proceedings and not on the basis of incriminating material/evidence found during the search proceedings. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by the AO in view of the judgment in the case of CIT Vs Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 0573 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 153A of the Act and the assessment was framed under section 153A of the Act by making addition of Rs. 2,60,71,350/- to the return income of the assessee filed at Rs. 7,82,700/-. 6. Relevant facts leading to such additions emerges as follows. In the course of search, the assessee and other family members captioned above were found to be owner of House no. 151 Deepali Enclave Sonepat. The cost of construction of such property was enquired in the course of search. As borne out from the notice under s. 142(1) dt. 19/12/2019, the AO observed that in the post search investigations, cost of these properties was subjected to valuation and report dated 19/07/2018 of Govt. approved valuer was obtained. It was thus observed from the valuation report that the cost of construction incurred is much higher that the cost reflected in the books. The value as per sale deed Rs. 90,33,000/-thus was deducted from the valuation of Rs. 8,72,47,050/- determined in the valuation report. It was estimated that source of excess cost of construction/ investment to the tune of Rs. 7,82,14,050/- has remained unexplained. It was found that Mrs. Kailash Mittal, Sumit Mittal & Aanshika Mittal are 1/3rd co-owners e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 6: 7.1 This ground of the appeal is as under "That the Ld. AO grossly erred in law and in facts of the case in making additions of Rs. 2,60,71,350/- to the income of the assessee under Section 69A of the Act despite the fact that no evidence of any unexplained investment existed with the Ld. AO." 7.2 After taking into consideration the submissions of the appellant and from the order of the AO, it is observed that this property was purchased by the assessee during F.Y. 2010-11 along with Smt. Kailash Mittal and Smt. Anshika Mittal for a consideration of Rs. 90,33,000/- The valuation as per the Stamp Valuation Authority was Rs. 82,51,818/ Thus, it is observed that the assessee and co-owners had purchased the immovable property at a price higher than the value as per Stamp Valuation Authority. 7.3 Further, whether any addition/disallowance be made without reference to any incriminating material/evidence found during the search operation when the assessment in that year is a completed assessment, has been dealt with and answered by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case CIT vs. Kabul Chawla. Hon'ble Court has taken a view in such cases that although section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was obtained by the Investigation Wing. Delhi from Government approved DVO without referring to any incriminating material for doing so. 7.5 In view of above, since the assessment year under consideration is a completed assessment year, any addition/disallowance ought to have been made by AO on the basis of such incriminating material/evidence as found during the search proceedings in view of various decisions, including CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra), of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. In view of this, the aforesaid additions made by AO on account of unexplained investment/money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 is not sustainable and deserve to be deleted as the addition had been made during the regular course of assessment proceedings and not on the basis of incriminating material/evidence found during the search proceedings. L therefore, delete the aforesaid additions made by AO on account of unexplained investment/money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 for AY 2011-12. However, if in future the ratio-decidendi of the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla gets reversed, the appeal will revive on these issues." 10. Aggrieved by the relief gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
