Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Daljeet Singh, New Delhi vs Assessee on 18 May, 2015
1
ITA No.771/Del/2015
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH 'B': NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER
and
SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.771/Del/2015
(ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08)
Shri Daljeet Singh, vs. ACIT, Central Circle 17,
232 - B, 3rd Floor, New Delhi.
Okhla Indl. Estate, Phase - III,
New Delhi - 110 020.
(PAN : ABJPS1140B)
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
ASSESSEE BY : S/Shri Salil Aggarwal & Shaliesh Gupta, Advocates
REVENUE BY : Smt. Parwinder Kaur, Senior DR
Date of Hearing : 19.03.2015
Date of Pronouncement : 18.05.2015
ORDER
PER SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JM:
This appeal, at the instance of the assessee, is directed against the order of the CIT (A) XXVI, New Delhi dated 13.01.2015. The relevant assessment year is 2007-08.
2. The assessee in his grounds of appeal has raised seven grounds. During the course of hearing, the learned AR did not press ground No.6. Hence, 2 ITA No.771/Del/2015 ground No.6 is dismissed as 'not pressed'. Ground No.7 is regarding levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Levy of interest under the above provisions are consequential in nature and, hence, ground No.7 is dismissed as no adjudication is required on the same. The surviving grounds, namely, ground Nos.1 to 4 relate to theissue of validity of the re-opening of the assessment by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Grounds 5 to 5.3 relate to the issue of the addition sustained by the CIT (A) on merit amounting to Rs.3,45,75,000/- on account of the alleged unexplained investment in a property.
3. The assessee, an individual, had furnished his return of income on 15.11.2008, admitting a total income of Rs.8.92 crores. There was a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act dated 18.01.2007 in the premises of the assessee. The AO had concluded the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2008 on a total income of Rs.9,00,29,900/-. Subsequently, the assessment in this case was reopened by issuance of a Notice u/s 148 of the Act on 28.3.2013. After taking into account the assessee's contentions made during the course of re-assessment proceedings and also the detailed reasons as recorded in the impugned assessment order under dispute, the AO concluded the re- assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 26.3.2014, determining the assessee's total income at Rs.12,38,56,450/-. The AO made an addition of Rs.3.45,75,000/- on account of unexplained investment. 3 ITA No.771/Del/2015
4. Briefly stated, the facts with reference to the addition of Rs.3,45,75,000/- are as follows :-
The assessee had 25% share in respect of a property at Satbari Village and paid Rs.1 crores as sale consideration for the subject property. The property was purchased from M/s. Space Age Technical Services Pvt. Ltd [SATSPL] on 28.3.2007 for a consideration of Rs.4 crores by the assessee (having 25% share), Rachpal Singh ( 50% share) and Harinder Singh (25% share).There was a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act in the premises of Tinna group on 11.11.2012. The seller of the impugned property namely M/S.SATSPL was part of the group concern of Tinna group of companies. In the course of search proceedings conducted in the premises of Tinna group of cases, the Revenue seized a valuation report of the impugned property prepared by an Approved Valuer, namely, Sri Ashok Raichand. The approved valuer, in his valuation report, arrived at the market value of the said property at Rs.17.83 crores.
According to the AO, since the sale consideration recorded in the sale deed was only Rs.4 crores for the impugned property, the balance amount of Rs.13.83 crores [i.e., Rs.17.83 - 4.00 crores] was the payment made outside the books of account. The assessee's share being 1/4th of total value of Rs.13.83 crores, a sum of Rs.3.45,75,000/- was added by the AO as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. While doing so, the AO brushed aside the assessee's objection with regard to the validity of reopening of the assessment and also on merits that the addition cannot be made merely on the 4 ITA No.771/Del/2015 basis of a report of an approved officer which was recovered from the premises of the seller (SATSPL) without any other corroborative evidence.
5. Aggrieved, the assessee took up the issue, among others, before the CIT (A).The CIT (A) decided the issue of validity of reopening of the assessment against the assessee by observing that -
"5.1. On perusal of assessment records, it is evident that the earlier assessment passed u/s 143(3) on 31.12.2008 did not refer to the matter of acquisition of property by the appellant. The only Additions that were made therein were Rs 4.50 lakhs on account of the appellant possessing Rolex wrist watch: and Rs 2.98 lakhs on account of some unexplained expenditure. It was only during the search/survey on 11/11/2000 on Tinna Group that the Approved Valuer's report was found, which valued the transacted property at Rs 17.83 crores as on 1611212006, as against its reported sale consideration of Rs 4 crores on 28/3/2007, that led to the reasonable belief of the AO that the property transaction had been under-reported by the buyer and the seller, resulting in income escaping assessment. In this background, the claim of the appellant; that all material, facts had been disclosed truly and fully by him during the course of the earlier assessment proceedings, is obviously not correct. Since the matter of under-reporting in property transaction came to the notice of the department after the passing of the assessment order u/s 143(3), the AO was justified in invoking the provisions of section 147.
5.2. In response to the appellant's claim, that proceedings could not be initiated in his case since 4 years had lapsed, the AO categorically informed the appellant that the re-opening of assessment had been approved by the competent authority. Now, since the re-opening of the appellant's case was-after the, expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant AY, in terms of the proviso to section 151 (1), the approval of the Commissioner on the reasons recorded by the AO was mandatory. As the perusal of the assessment record reveals, the reasons recorded by the AO were considered by the Commissioner and the communication of his satisfaction for issue of notice u/s 148 was communicated by letter no. 3961 5 ITA No.771/Del/2015 dated 25.03.2013, which was received by the AO on 26.03.2013. Therefore, the claim of the appellant, that the notice u/s 148 was not valid because it was issued after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant A Y, was not maintainable.
5.3. Thus, by communicating the reasons for re-opening the assessment u/s 147, providing the copy of the material (the Approved Valuer's report) on the basis of which he had reasons to believe about the income escaping assessment, and by informing that the notice had been issued with the prior approval of the competent authority, the AO disposed the objection raised by the appellant in his letter filed on 2112/2013.
5.4. Sheer obduracy of the appellant in persisting with objection to the reassessment proceedings by subsequent letters filed on 13/,1/2014 and 26/2/2014, and then claiming in the appellate proceedings that the objections raised by him had not been addressed by the AO, merits outright rejection. The letters issued by the appellant, repeatedly challenging the issue of notice u/s 148, and asking for details of investigation, inquiry and findings of the AO, are evidences of his blatant obstructions to stymie the re-assessment proceedings. His submission in the Statement of Facts contained in Form 35, that he had 'placed on record various cases decided by courts' is factually incorrect because none of his letters (filed on 02.12.2013, 13.01.2014, 26.02.2014) referred to any decision of any judicial authority.
5.5. Since the AD had provided the copy of the Approved Valuer's report, on the basis of which he had formed his satisfaction to re-open the assessment, and which was found by the department during search/survey on 11111/2010 in the Tinna group, much after the assessment order u/s 143(3) had been passed on 31.l2.2008,and also because the Commissioner was satisfied on the reasons recorded by him that it was a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148, there is no merit in the objection of the appellant that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148 is contrary to the provisions of law or that the notice u/s 148 was improper or that the framing of the assessment order was without proper jurisdiction. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148 is held to be valid. Accordingly, grounds 2 and 3 of the appeal are dismissed."6 ITA No.771/Del/2015
6. With reference to the issue on merits, the CIT (A) adopted the market value fixed by the approved valuer in his report which was seized during the course search and seizure proceedings in the premises of the seller's group namely Tinna group of cases. The CIT (A) also did not accept the DVO's report who had fixed the value of the impugned property at Rs.1.64,28,000/- [the DVO's report was taken by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings of the seller]. The relevant findings of the CIT (A) with reference to issue on merit read as follows "6.3.4. Since it is not for the appellant, who was one of the co-buyers of the property transacted in March 2007, to have actual knowledge about the 'purpose' for which the seller (Space Age Technical Services P Ltd) might have engaged the services of the Approved Valuer in December 2006, his claim - that the value of Rs 17.83 crores determined by the Approved Valuer as the fair market value did not reflect the real value but represented inflated value to enable Space Age Technical Services P Ltd to 'obtain high finance' or 'negotiate on the basis of Inflated value' and 'get good price' for the property - lies in the realm of imagination. In any case, as evident from the sale deed, the property was not mortgaged by the seller to obtain finance. As for the 'purpose of negotiation', it may be stated that once the market value of the property became known at Rs.17.83 crores, and in the absence of distress sale, it would have been a mindless proposition for the seller to close the deal at merely Rs 4 crores.
6.3.5. In view of the above discussion, It is obvious that- the stated value of consideration at Rs 4 crores for transaction of property B-3, Ansal Villa, Village Satbari, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi was not correct; that the market value determined by the Approved Valuer at Rs 17.83 crores as per the valuation report found during search/survey on the Tinna group was the actual sale consideration; and that out of Rs.17.83 crores, the buyers paid only Rs 4 crores in cheque 7 ITA No.771/Del/2015 and the balance of Rs 13.83 crores was paid ill cash out of undisclosed income. Now, since the appellant's share in the property was25%, the total consideration paid by him was held to be Rs.4,45,75,000, of which Rs.1 crore was paid through banking channel and the remaining Rs.3,45,75,000 was held to have been paid in cash .out of undisclosed income. Thus the AO was justified in adding Rs.3,45,75,000 to the total income of the appellant as unexplained investment.
6.3.6. As evident from the perusal of the assessment records, the AO gave several opportunities to the appellant to participate in the assessment proceedings, but it was the appellant who adopted recalcitrant stance. Also the claim of the appellant, that he specifically requested the AO to grant him opportunity to cross examine the seller of the property, is factually incorrect. The appellant did not make such a request, which in any case, was not maintainable since the seller was never posited by the AO as his witness.
6.3.7. Therefore, grounds 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the appeal are dismissed."
7. Being aggrieved, the assessee has come up before us with the present appeal. During the course of hearing, the submissions made by the learned AR are summarized as under:
(i) that the valuation report which has been sought to be relied on by the department for re-opening of the assessment under section 148 of the Act was not a fresh or valid material which can lead to re-open of an assessment and re-assessment proceedings should be quashed on this ground along and in order to support the aforesaid proposition, the following case laws are relied upon, namely:
>ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co - 328 ITR 515 (SC); >MahashayChunnilal v. DCIT - 362 ITR 314 (Del)
(ii) that the AO had to specify in the reasons recorded, as to which material has not been disclosed by the assessee during the course of original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act and that in the present case, the said disclosure by the 8 ITA No.771/Del/2015 AO was absent in the reasons recorded and, thus, the reassessment order requires to be quashed on this count alone - Refer: Global signatures Cable (India) Ltd. v. DCIT [368 ITR 609 (Del)]
(iii) that the reopening of the assessment was merely based on change of opinion of the AO as all the necessary details were filed before the AO during the course of original assessment proceedings and, as such, the reopening of the assessment was bad in law - Refer: CIT v. Usha International Ltd [348 ITR 485 (Del)];
(iv) that even on merits, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable in law as the AO had solely placed reliance on the report of the valuation officer and in doing so, the AO had failed to discharge his initial burden which rests upon him u/s 69 of the Act. Since, the AO had failed to conduct further enquiries and investigation to prove that the alleged payment had been made by the assessee, no addition could have been made in the hands of the assessee. Refer:
(a) CIT v. Naveen Gera - 328 ITR 516 (Del);
(b) CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal - 338 ITR 485 (Del);
(c) CIT v. Suraj Devi - 328 ITR 604 (SC);
(d) CIT v. Ved Prakash Chowdhary - 305 ITR 245 (Del); &
(e) CIT v. Naresh Khattar HUF - 261 ITR 664 (Del)
(v) that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dt. 18.3.2014 was issued by the AO by ignoring the basic fact that no return of income was filed by the assessee in pursuance of a notice u/s 148 of the Act and, thus, issuance of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was bad in law and the re-assessment framed in pursuance thereto was void-ab-initio which requires to be quashed.
Refer: 113 DTR 19 [ITAT, Bangalore]"
8. On the other hand, the learned DR supported the findings of the CIT (A) on the issue. She had, further, contended that the AO was within his realm for initiation of re-assessment proceedings in the present case. To support herstand, the ld. DR had placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional 9 ITA No.771/Del/2015 High Court in the case of Bawa Abhai Singh v. DCIT reported in (2002) 253 ITR 0083 (Del). The learned A Rin his rejoindersubmitted that the very case relied on by the learned DR was taken note of by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in its subsequent judgment in the case of Mahashay Chunnilal v. DCIT reported in (2014) 362 ITR 0314 (Del) and had, in fact, distinguished the judgment relied on by the Revenue in the case of Bawa Abhai Singh (supra).
9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant materials on record. On a pointed query from the Bench, the learned DR submitted that the appeals of the co-owners of the subject property are still pending for adjudication before the CIT (A). It was, further, clarified that the CIT (A) had originally dismissed the appeals of the co-owners inlimine without going into the merits of the cases since the admitted taxes, according to the CIT (A), were not paid. The earlier Bench of this Tribunal restored the appeals before the CIT (A) and it in this context the matter is still pending for disposal before the CIT (A). Similarly, the issue in the hands of the seller is also pending for adjudication before the CIT (A).
10. The twin issues that arise for our consideration are, namely :
(i) Whether the reopening of the assessment by issuance of a notice u/s 148 of the Act is valid? and
(ii) Whether the CIT (A) was justified in confirming the AO's action in making an addition of Rs.3.45 crores u/s 69 of the Act?10 ITA No.771/Del/2015
11. We shall first consider the issue on merits, namely, whether the addition of Rs.3.45 crores was justified on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Apparently, the AO had solely relied on the valuation report prepared by an approved valuer which was seized during the course of a search operation conducted in Tinna Group of cases on 11.11.2010 [sellers of the subject property]. In the said report, the approved valuer had allegedly arrived at the value of the impugned property at Rs.17.83 crores. Accordingly, the AO had come to a conclusion that the assessee had under-stated the value of the subject property by Rs.13.83 crores [Rs.17.83 - Rs.4 crores]. Apart from this, there was, apparently, no documentary evidence or material in his possession to come to a definite conclusion that the assessee had made extra consideration over and above what was described in the sale deed with reference to the purchase of impugned property. Though there were agreements for sale for other properties seized in the form of a CD, there was nothing on record to show that those agreements have resulted in sale of properties at the mentioned prices of the agreements. Admittedly, the AO had no material evidence on hand to prove conclusively that the assessee had understated the value of the impugned property. In other-words, the AO had not discharged the primary burden of proof to establish that the assessee, in fact, understated the value of the property in the sale deed. In the absence ofany material or proof, the AO cannot proceed to rely upon the valuation arrived at by an approved valuer and, thus, come to a conclusion that the subject property has been understated in its value. The 11 ITA No.771/Del/2015 valuation report prepared by the approved valuer and seized from the premises of the seller had not divulged the reason for which it was prepared. The seller itself objected to the value to be adopted in its hands for the purpose of capital gains. In the course of assessment proceedings in the case of the seller, the impugned property was referred to the DVO for valuation. The DVO of the Department had himself valued the subject property at Rs.1,64,28,000/- which wasfarbelow the sale documented price of Rs.4 crores. Further, the documented price of Rs.4 crores, admittedly, was above the guideline/circle rates which prevailed at that relevant period.
12. At this juncture, our reference was drawn to the fact that various Courts have held that the primary burden of proof to prove under-statement or concealment of income of the assessee was on the Revenue. For ready reference, the judgments delivered by various Hon'ble Courts on a similar issue are mentioned hereunder:
(i) In the case of CIT v. Naveen Gera reported in (2010) 328 ITR 0516 (Del), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had held that -
"................that the concealed income was detected during the course of search or any evidence was found which would indicate such concealment. The seized material containing the sale deeds of the properties which have been relied upon to make reference to the DVO, had already been declared to the Revenue by the respondent- assessee under the VDIS. We are also in agreement with the submission made by Mr.Piyuush Kaushik that it is settled law that in the absence of any incriminating evidence that anything has been paid over and above than the stated amount, the primary burden of proof is on the 12 ITA No.771/Del/2015 Revenue to show that there has been an understatement or concealment of income. It is only when such burden has been discharged, would it be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the DVO. Further, the opinion of the DVO, per se, is not an information and cannot be relied upon in the absence of other corroborative evidence...."
(ii) In CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal (supra), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court had held that -
"....the assessing officer solely relied upon the report of the District Valuation Officer. Apart from this, there was admittedly no evidence or material in his possession to come to the conclusion that the assessee had paid extra consideration over and above what was stated in the sale deed. This very issue has come up for consideration before this court repeatedly and after following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC), the aforesaid proposition of law is reiterated time and again. For our benefit, we may refer to the latest judgment of this court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Suraj Devi (2010) 328 ITR 604 (Delhi), wherein this court had held that the primary burden of proof to prove understatement or concealment of income is on the Revenue and it is only when such burden is discharged that it would be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the District Valuation Officer. It was also held that then opinion of the Valuation Officer per se was not information and could not be relied upon without the books of account being rejected which had not been done in that case."
(ii) In CIT v. Smt. Suraj Devi reported in (2010) 328 ITR 0604 (Del), the Hon'ble Court has held that -
"It is settled that that the primary burden of proof to prove understatement or concealment of income is on the Revenue and it is only when such burden is discharged that it would be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the DVO.[see K P Varghese v ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC), cit V. Shankuntala Devi (2009) 316 ITR 46 (Del) and 13 ITA No.771/Del/2015 CIT v. Vinodsinghal [I.T.A NO.482 OF 2010 decided by this court on May 5, 2010].
In any event, the opinion of the DVO, per se is not an information and cannot be relied upon without the books of account being rejected which has not been done in the present case....."
(iv) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asst. ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC) had held (on Page 515) that "...the Department sought reopening of the assessment based on the opinion given by the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The opinion of the DVO per se is not information for the purposes of reopening assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act 1961. The assessing officer has to apply his mind to the information, if any, collected and must form a belief thereon......."
13. Incidentally in the case under dispute, the AO had neither applied his mind nor formed a belief, but, merely came to the conclusion, based on the report of the approved valuer found during the search operation at the premises of Tinna Group of cases, that the value of the land under dispute was shown highly understated and, accordingly, initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. Moreover, in the course of assessment proceeding of the seller, the impugned property was referred to the DVO of the Department for valuation and he arrived at the value of Rs.1.64crores which was much below than the price mentioned in the sale deed of the impugned property. The valuation report being only an opinion, the same cannot be a sole basis for making an addition without any corroborative evidence to hold that there is an undisclosed payment 14 ITA No.771/Del/2015 in purchase of the impugned property, especially, when the sale prices mentioned in the sale deeds are much above the guideline/circle rate.
14. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the issue as deliberated upon in the fore-going paragraphs and also in consonance with the judgements of various Hon'ble Courts (supra), we are of the view that the CIT (A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.3,45,75,000/-made by the AO u/s 69 of the Act as the AO had solely placed reliance on the report of the approved valuer. It is ordered accordingly.
15. With regard to the assessee's objection to the re-opening of the assessment by issuance of a notice u/s 148 of the Act, our findings are as follows:
In the instant case, there was a search in the premises of the assessee on 18.01.2007. Admittedly, no incriminating document was found which point out that there was under-statement of the value of the impugned property in the sale deed. The AO, in the course of original assessment proceeding in pursuance of the search, was aware of the purchase of the impugned property by the assessee.
The assessee, in his reply dated 25.11.2008 to the AO's query, had mentioned the fact that he made investment in agricultural land for an amount of Rs.1 crore and the sale deed was also enclosed along with the reply filed in the course of original assessment proceeding. The assessee's reply along with the enclosed document to the AO's query in the original proceeding was placed at pages 14- 76 of the Paper Book furnished by the assessee. The AO, in the course of 15 ITA No.771/Del/2015 original proceeding, did not refer to the DVO to ascertain the market value of the impugned property. Undisputedly, in this case, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued beyond four years from the date of the end of the assessment year and the first proviso to section 147 is applicable, since the assessment was already concluded u/s 143 (3) of the Act. For ready reference, the first proviso of the section 147 of the Act is reproduced herein below:
"147...Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year."
16. From the above proviso, it is clear, the AO must have a reason to believe that the escapement of income from assessment must be occasioned by the failure on the part of the assessee to, inter alia, disclose material facts fully and truly. If this condition is not satisfied, there would be a bar to taking any action under section 147 of the Act. In the instant case, reasons recorded for re- opening of the assessment are placed at page 89 of the Paper Book. On a perusal of the reasons recorded, it is evident that while the assessing officer mentioned that income had escaped assessment because of the failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose the material facts for assessment, he has not indicated as to which material fact had not been fully and truly 16 ITA No.771/Del/2015 disclosed. In such circumstances, the re-opening of the assessment has been held to be invalid by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Global Signal Cables (India) (P) Ltd v. DCIT reported in (2015) 54 taxmann.com 114(Delhi). The relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court read as under:
"17. It is evident that while the assessing officer mentioned that income had escaped assessment because of the failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose the material facts for assessment, he has not indicated as to which material fact had not been fully and truly disclosed by the petitioner/assessee."
17. In the instant case, as mentioned earlier, in the course of original assessment proceeding, the AO was made aware of the purchase of the impugned property and the sale deed was duly enclosed in the assessee's reply to the AO's query. The only reason for the reopening of the assessment was the alleged seizure of the valuation report of the approved valuer from the premises of the sellers of the impugned property. The valuation report of the approved valuer was nothing but an opinion expressed by him. Therefore, when all the necessary details were filed and taken note of by the AO during the course of the original assessment proceeding pursuant to the search and seizure action conducted in the premises of the assessee, the reopening of the assessment was merely based on change of opinion of the AO. For taking the above view, we are fortified by the judgments of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of (i) Global Signal Cables (India) (P) Ltd v. DCIT (supra) and (ii) CIT v. Usha International Ltd reported in (2012) 348 ITR 0485 (Del). Furthermore, as 17 ITA No.771/Del/2015 mentioned earlier, the valuation report of the approved valuer being merely an opinion, the same cannot be sought to be relied on by the Department for the reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act and this principle has been reiterated by various judicial pronouncements, namely:
(i) ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. - 328 ITR 515 (SC);
(ii) MahashayChunnilal v. DCIT - 362 ITR 314 (Del); &
(iii) CIT v. Dharamveern Sardana in ITA 266/2012 dt.4.5.2012
18. Further, the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bawa Abhai Singh v. DCIT (supra) relied on by the learned D.R has been considered by the Hon'ble Court in the case of Mahashay Chunnilal v. DCIT (supra) and duly distinguished. Since the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mahashay Chunnilal v. DCIT being the latest and in consonance with the same, we decide the reopening of the assessment is not in accordance with the provisions of law in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. It is ordered accordingly.
19. In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in open court on this 18th day of May, 2015.
Sd/- sd/-
(B.C. MEENA) (GEORGE GEORGE K.)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated the 18th May day of May, 2015
TS
18
ITA No.771/Del/2015
Copy forwarded to:
1.Appellant
2.Respondent
3.CIT
4.CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi.
5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT
NEW DELHI.