ICICI

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

ACIT, Central Circle- 16, New Delhi Vs Vinita Chaurasia, New Delhi

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT New Delhi

Brief :
Appellant, ACIT, Central Circle 16, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Revenue’) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 26.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXVI, New Delhi qua the assessment year 2009-10 on the grounds inter alia that :-

Citation :
ITA No.7382/Del./2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI)

BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
and
SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)

ITA No.7382/Del./2017
(ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10)

ACIT, Central Circle 16,New Delhi.
(APPELLANT) 

vs.
Smt. Vinita Chaurasia,
575, Double Storey Flats,New Rajendra Nagar,New Delhi – 110 060.(PAN : AAFPC4589D)
(RESPONDENT)

ASSESSEE BY : Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA
REVENUE BY : Shri F.R. Meena, Senior DR
Date of Hearing : 15.10.2020
Date of Order : 22.10.2020

O R D E R

PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

Appellant, ACIT, Central Circle 16, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Revenue’) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 26.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXVI, New Delhi qua the assessment year 2009-10 on the grounds inter alia that :-

“Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deletion the addition of Rs.4,00,00,000/- on the basis that Hon’ble High Court of Delhi as well as Hon’ble ITAT in assessee's own case for A.Y.2010-11 has held that initiation of assessment proceedings u/s 153C was invalid, ignoring the fact that after the amendment in section 153C, which is c1arificatory and curative and thus retrospective in nature, the requirement, is that the documents must pertain to the assessee and must have a bearing on the income of the assessee. Also, Department is in process of filing of SLP against the order of Delhi High Court in ITA No. 1004/2015 & 1005/2015, in assessee's case for AY 2010-11.”

2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : subsequent to the search and seizure operation carried out on Chaurasia Group on 29.04.2008, assessee filed return for various years u/s 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and regular assessment was framed at the income of Rs.1,61,49,687/- u/s 153C/143(3) of the Act.Subsequent thereto, search and seizure operation at the premises of Lalit Modi, a third party, was carried out on 19.06.2009 and a document No. Annexure A-1, Page 5, was found and seized on the basis of which proceedings u/s 153C were initiated and accordingly assessment was framed u/s 153C/143 (3) of the Act at the income of Rs.161,49,687/-.

3. On the basis of seized document, Annexure A-1, Page 5,from the premises of Lalit Modi, an addition of Rs.19,02,68,289/-was made for AY 2010-11 which was confirmed by the ld. CIT (A), however he has also enhanced the assessed income by Rs.5,50,72,700/-. In AY 2010-11, ld. CIT (A) issued directions to the AO to assess a sum of Rs.4 crores in the hands of assessee for AY 2009-10 on the basis of same seized document which was qua property purchased by the assessee in Vasant Square Mall on 13.05.2009 from Suncity Projects (P) Ltd. out of which Rs.4 crores was allegedly received by the assessee in AY 2009-10. Consequently, AO made addition of Rs.4 crores and framed the assessment u/s 147/143(3) of the Act at an income of Rs.5,61,49,690/-.

To know more in details find the attachment file
 

 

Guest
on 30 October 2020
Published in Income Tax
Views : 19
downloaded 17 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags