9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Member For the Assessee : Sh. Amol Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent : Sh. P.N. Barnwal, CIT- DR ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: Both appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi [ Ld. CIT(A , for short], dated 28/01/2022 for Assessment Year 2011-12, whereas the assessee has also filed Cross Objections in both appeals. 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections raised by the assessee are as under: ITA No.830/Del/20232 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,67,32,350/-made by AO on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee and stating that, 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. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by the AO in view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 as the said decision does not deal with the fact situation that arises in the present case. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not considering the fact that the Valuation Report was duly called u/s 142A which clearly proved that the value of property is higher that the value shown by the assessee. 3.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee could not file any explanation to the said Valuation report. 4. (a) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. C.O. No.08/Del/2023 1. That the Ld. AO grossly erred in invoking provisions of Sec. 153A(1)(a) of the Act to the case of the assessee despite the fact that there e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppali Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi along with seized material. He observed that the assessee has accepted ownership of respective property in its preliminary statement and in statement u/s 132(4) of the Act. The Valuation Report was also provided to assessee on 29/08/2019. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, AO observed that the assessee had acquired properties namely Plot No.151-152, Deepali Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi during the financial year. The cost/value ascertained by the Government approved valuer vide its report dated 19/07/2018, was much higher than the cost shown by the assessee with respect to the properties purchased that description of the plots and their values in the year of the purchase by the assessee i.e. F.Y. 2010-11 are given below: Description Property Area of Plot Date of Sale Deed Value as per Sale Deed (in Rs. Stamp Valuation for land mentioned in the sale Deed (in Rs. ) Stamp value as per Government Approved Valuer s report (in Rs. ) Rate as per reserve price of DDA for auction with time adjustment (in Rs. ) Plot No.151, Deepali Encalve, Pitampura, Delhi 366 Sq. yards (306.13 Sqm) 04.02.2011 90,33,000 66,71,018 1,33,47,268 8,72,47,050 Plot No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Ld. CIT(A) observed that as it can be seen from the present assessment order, the additions have been made on the basis on Valuation Report which was obtained by the Investigation Wing, Delhi from the Govt. approved DVO without referring to any incriminating material for doing so. The Ld. CIT(A) has decided the jurisdictional issue and has not adjudicated other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee as well as additional grounds. 10. Aggrieved with the above order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 11. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR brought to our notice brief facts of the case from the assessment order and also brought to our notice findings of the Ld. CIT(A). He vehemently argued that the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. He heavily relied on the findings of the Assessing Officer. 12. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the issue involved is the addition made merely relying on the Valuation Report obtained by the Investigation Wing, Delhi after the search proceedings and Ld. AO has not brought on record any incriminating material found during the search in the case of the assessee. Further, he brought to our notice tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
