Referred Sections:
Section 153A of the I.T. Act.
Section 139(1) of the I.T.Act
Referred Cases / Judgments:
CIT vs. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del.)
CIT vs. Meeta Gut Gutia 395 ITR 526 (Del.)
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCHES "D" : DELHI
BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA.Nos.4026, 4027, 4028 & 4029/Del./2017
Assessment Years 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 & 2012-2013
Jey Kay Pvt. Ltd., 10 The DCIT,
Scindia House, Connaught Central Circle-8,
Place, New Delhi 110 001 vs. New Delhi.
PAN AAACJ0047M
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Shri V.K. Aggarwal, A.R. &
For Assessee : Smt. Shweta Bansal, C.A.
For Revenue : Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-D.R.
Date of Hearing : 08.08.2019
Date of Pronouncement : 09.08.2019
ORDER
PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.
All the appeals by Assessee are directed against
the different Orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-25, Delhi, Dated
29.03.2017 for the A.Ys. 2009-2010 to 2012-2013.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that during
assessment years under appeals the assessee had disclosed
income only from house property. The company owns a
2
ITA.Nos.4026 to 4029/Del./2017
Jey Kay Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
property at 15-Amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi which is
stated to be residential house property. Income from rent
was declared. Search was conducted in the case of assessee
on 04.08.2014 wherein property tax challan for A.Y. 2014-
2015 was found and on the basis of this document,
proceedings under section 153A have been initiated. As per
the said bill, the Tax Department of New Delhi Municipal
Council, New Delhi has charged the property tax of the said
property on rateable value of Rs.43,51,200/- per annum.
On the basis of this document, A.O. computed higher
rateable value of the property and addition was made on
account of income from house property ignoring the rent
declared by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the
appeals.
3. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee at the
outset submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the
assessment orders under section 153A which is illegal being
against the provisions of the Income Tax Act. He has
submitted that during the course of search, no
incriminating material was found pertaining to the
3
ITA.Nos.4026 to 4029/Del./2017
Jey Kay Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
impugned assessment years. As on the date of search, no
assessment proceedings were pending. The assessee filed
original return of income under section 139(1) of the I.T.Act
on time. Copies of the acknowledgment of filing of the
original return of income are filed on record. He has
submitted that under these circumstances no addition
could be made of this nature under section 153A of the I.T.
Act. He has submitted that the issue is covered by the
Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs.,
Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del.) in which it was held as
under:
"Completed assessments can be interfered with by the
A.O. while making the assessment under section 153A
only on the basis of some incriminating material
unearthed during the course of search or requisition of
documents or undisclosed income or property
discovered in the course of search which were not
produced or not already disclosed or made known in the
course of original assessment"
4
ITA.Nos.4026 to 4029/Del./2017
Jey Kay Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
3.1. He has submitted that the Honble Delhi High
Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Meeta Gut Gutia 395 ITR
526 (Del.) in paras 69 to 72 of the Order held as under:
"69. What weighed with the Court in the above decision
was the "habitual concealing of income and indulging in
clandestine operations" and that a person indulging in
such activities "can hardly be accepted to maintain
meticulous books or records for long." These factors are
absent in the present case. There was no justification at
all for the AO to proceed on surmises and estimates
without there being any incriminating material qua the
AY for which he sought to make additions of franchisee
commission.
70. The above distinguishing factors in Dayawanti
Gupta (supra), therefore, do not detract from the settled
legal position in Kabul Chawla (supra) which has been
followed not only by this Court in its subsequent
decisions but also by several other High Courts.
5
ITA.Nos.4026 to 4029/Del./2017
Jey Kay Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
71. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Court is
of the view that the ITAT was justified in holding that
the invocation of Section 153A by the Revenue for the
AYs 2000-01 to 2003-04 was without any legal basis as
there was no incriminating material qua each of those
AYs.
Conclusion
72. To conclude :
(i) Question (i) is answered in the negative i.e., in favour
of the Assessee and against the Revenue. It is held that
in the facts and circumstances, the Revenue was not
justified in invoking Section 153 A of the Act against the
Assessee in relation to AYs 2000-01 to AYs 2003-04."
3.2. He has further submitted that the Judgment of
Honble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Meeta
Gut Gutia (supra) has been confirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP of the Department
reported in 257 Taxman 441.
6
ITA.Nos.4026 to 4029/Del./2017
Jey Kay Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
4. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand relied upon the
Orders of the authorities below.
5. We have considered the rival submissions. It is
an admitted fact that during the course of search conducted
a property tax challan for A.Y. 2014-2015 was found which
is also reproduced in the assessment orders which is copy
of the property tax bill raised by NDMC. Learned Counsel
for the Assessee also referred to PB-52 to show receipt of the
same which pertain to the A.Y. 2014-2015. This receipt,
therefore, pertain to A.Y. 2014-2015 and has no relevance
to the A.Ys. 2009-2010 to 2012-2013 under appeals. Since
no incriminating material was found pertaining to the
assessment years under appeals, therefore, the issue is
covered by the Judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
the case of CIT vs., Kabul Chawla (supra) and Pr. CIT vs.
Meeta Gut Gutia (supra) and the Judgment in the case of
Pr. CIT vs. Meeta Gut Gutia (supra) of the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court have been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court by dismissing the SLP of the Department. In view of
the above, there was no justification for the authorities
7
ITA.Nos.4026 to 4029/Del./2017
Jey Kay Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
below to make the addition on account of higher rateable
value of the property under the head income from other
sources. In view of the above, we set aside the Orders of the
authorities below and delete all the additions.
6. In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court.
Sd/- Sd/-
(T.S. KAPOOR) (BHAVNESH SAINI)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Delhi, Dated 09th August, 2019
VBP/-
Copy to
1. The appellant
2. The respondent
3. CIT(A) concerned
4. CIT concerned
5. D.R. ITAT `D' Bench, Delhi
6. Guard File.
// BY Order //
Assistant Registrar : ITAT Delhi Benches :
Delhi.
|
