Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M/S. Neel Infratech, Nagpur on 31 July, 2024
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR UTA No. 125/Nag./2021 (Assessment Year : 2019-20) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur. I .. Appellant vis M/s. Neel Infratech, Flat No. 201-202, 2™ Floor, 16, Ujjwal Co-Op. Housing Society, Narendra Nagar ceveveceseevesee Respondent Square, Ring Road, Nagpur. PAN : AAHFNO427H Assessee by : Shri Suren Duragkar, CA Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing ~ 29/07/2024 | Date of Order ~ 31/07/2024 ORDER PER K.M.ROY, A.M.
The present appeal has been preferred by the department challenging the impugned order dated 29/03/2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals}-3, Nagpur [ "learned CIT(A}"|, for the assessment year 2019-20.
2. The grounds of appeal raised by the department are as follows:
fi} On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, LaLCYT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,48,000/- on account of cash receipts which BCT vs Ms, Neal Infratech ITA ne, 125/Nag (2023 was correctly added in the income of the assesses by the Assessing Officer on the basis of incriminating documents found and impounded during the course of survey proceedings and considering the facts and circumstance of the case.
{2} On the facts and in the ciroumstances of the case, Ld. CITA) has erred allowing the assessee's appeal without considering the facts that the documents No. A-2/12 (pages | to 84) and A-2/64 (page 1 to 185) based on which the addition of Rs.2,86, 14,610/ was made has evidentiary value and assessee failed to. explain with any documentary evidences during the course of assessment proceedings and kept silence on this issue {3} On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CYT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,86,14,610/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the IT Act, which was correctly added by the Assessing Officer in the income of the assessee on the basis of incriminating documents found and impounded during the course of survey proceedings.
[4] Any other grounds and fact to be raised at the time of appeal."
3, The facts of the case as culled out from the CIT(A}'s order are as follows:-
"A survey action u/s 1334 af the LT. Act was conducted at the business premises of M/s. Tirupati Developers, During the survey proceedings many incriminating documents related to the appellant were found and impounded. Accordingly, the case of the appellant was reopened u's 147 of the Act afier recording the reasons as required by section 148(2} of the Act and obiaining necessary section w's 151, The appellant is partnership firm engaged in marketing associate in the field af Real Estate Business. The appellant filed his original return af incame uals 1397} for A.¥. 2019-20 an 23/07/2019 declaring total income of Rs. 14,47,930/-. In response to notice u/s 148 of the Act which was issued on 17/02/2021, the appellant filled the return of income on 15/03/2022 declaring total income of Rs.
13,47, 9305.
Subsequently, natices wis 143(2) of the Act was issued and served te the appellant an 13/03/2022 and notices us 142(1} af the Act was also issued and served fo the appellant.
The AQ has made assessment ués 147 af the Act on 31/03/2022 determining total assessed income at_Rs. 3,04, [0,540/ after making addition of Rs. 3,48, 0007- an accaunt of Marketing Income and Rs, 2,86,14,6H)- on account of Unexplained income us 69C af the Act.
4, Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the CIT{A). The assessee challenged the addition of Rs.3,48,000/- made by the Page { 2 OIIT we Mes. Neel infratech ITA no. Lek Nag (2023 Assessing Officer. The learned CIT(A) granted relief by holding as follows;
3, "The addition of tatal incame was made on account af adhoc 30% of the cash received fron: the customers by Ad/s Tirupati Developers ta the income of the appediant as per para 27 of the assessment order. In the written subunission, if has been Nated that the appellant acts as broker/marketing assaciate and fined customers for projects of Mis Tirupati Developers and in return receives canunission AG's Trupati Develapees has practice af bookings plots in the name of Broker/Marketing Associates instead of actual customers of plots. The appellant has a practice ef booking revenue share in books of accounts after execution of sale deed. The appellant has shawn the entire conenissian received §)-3 ax income in the books of account of the appellant in respective assessment years. The appellee has shown its share of Income much more than whatever mentioned in the impounded documents, Further the appellant has submilted the sappartiig dacuments tp the AQ relating to the all inipownded documents but the same had not been considered by the AO while passing the assessment order. The AQ has considered the cash receipt in framing the assessment of the appellant, which is mol correct.
dt is very much clear that the Impounded documents & registers having entries related da not maich. Therefore, the impounded dacuments cannat be relied upon is nat conclusive evidence, in view of the above Jacts and circianstances, | direct ta the AO ta delete the addition af Rs. 3,458,000. Hence ground no. 2 is allowed.
The assess further challenged the addition of Rs.2,86,14,610/- made on account of unexplained expenditure in respect of booking of plots and brought to tax u/s 69C of the LT. Act, 1961. The learned CIT(A) granted rehef by holding as follows:
"The addition of total income was made an account of unexplained expenditure in respect af booking of plots and same is brought to tax u/s 69C of the Act, as per para 3 of Me assessment arder, Ax per the impounded documents, cash is paid by the custamers who have booked plots of M/s Tirupati Develapers through the appellant and the same was entered in the name af appellant in the cash book by Mis Firupati Developers. Further impounded documents which were seised from the premises of M's Tirupati Developers had name mentioned of the appellant "instead af acteal plat owner's name. The 40 relied only on these donaenens which were found from the premises of third party. Alisa, ihe AO huts considered the entire amount ay unexplained expenditure and added back to income ef the appellant without bringing any corroborative or additional evidence, During the assessment proceedings the appellant Aas explained with docwmentary evidence thet the said cash payments along with payments thraugh banking channel, were paid by the customers to M's Tirupat! Developers, against Page {3 QC vs M/s. Nee lofratech {TA ae. 225/Nag./2023 which Ad's Tirupati Developers hay executed sale deed of plats in the name of customers. Further, the appellant has made variaus judicial references in the submission regarding addition made w's 69C which ix reproduced below.
i. dn Prarthana Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incame Tax an 20 Decentber, 1999 (ITAT- Ahmedabad) - -
"lt has been held that loose papers and documents seized from premises af third parties and statement recorded af back of assesseé without it being afforded opportunity to interrogate said documents and without bringing on record any Ssupporling evidence, could not be made basis for adding undisclosed income in hands of assessee".
ida ERC Bhandari and S.C. Sethi ¥. ACTY, ITAT Jodhpur Bench -
Jn aur above decision, we have found the addition made on the basis of loase sheets found from the possession of third party and not corroborated by any other supportive evidence to be uncalled for and not sustainable inlaw. We follow aur Gforesaid decision and hold accordingly, and in turn, we uphold the impugned order of learned CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO on the basis of entries in the loose sheets being page Nos. 67 and 71 of Annexure A-i, fourud from he possession of Shri AK. Chajjer. We order accardingly.
it is very much clear that the gnpounded documents & registers having entries related do not patch. Therefore, the impounded documents cannot be relied NDOH is not conclusive evidence. In view ef the above facts and circumstances I direct to the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 2.86,14,610'-. Hence ground na. 3 is allowed.
6. The revenue being aggrieved is in appeal before us. The learned Sr. DR. opened his argument by canvassing that the appellant failed to produce any document before the Assessing Officer and as such the CIT(A) has gone amiss in entertaining the addition evidence filed before it. He, therefore, requested that the matter may be set aside for fresh adjudication before the AO.
7. On the other hand, the learned AR submitted that all the evidences are before the Assessing Officer, but he passed a very cryptic order ignoring all the evidences on record. No additional evidences were relied before CIT(A).
&. We have carefully gone through the evidences on record and perused the submission. We find that the department has not pressed the ground of Page [| 4 EXIT vs Mis, Meal fofracach FTA mo. § 25% Nag. (2023 non-adherence to Rule 46A ef Income Tax Rules regarding production of additional evidence before the CIT(A). In fact, in the paper book the assessee has submitted vide page Nos. 100 to 130 all the details submitted before the Assessing Officer in reply to notice u/s 1421) of the LT. Act, 1961. We find that the same has also been uploaded on a portal on 21% January, 2022, vide acknowledgment No. 939209811210122 which was before the duc date of submission of 318 March, 2022. However, the arder passed under 31% March, 2022, does nat make any reference ta the detailed submission so made. The learned AR has correctly drawn our attention to the meticulous submission before the Assessing Officer, wwherei ninutest explanation of each and cvery page of important document has been furnished. He has clearly pointed out as to the nature and source of such cash receipts. He also made a detailed written submission before us, which is reproduced below for the sake of easy reference.
"Growad No. J: Addition made of Rs. 3.98,000- being Estimated Marketing dcome A.O.- Para 2- Page Na. $4 te 9?CUY fA} Page No. 3 te 23
i, Doeument No A-2°8: The axsessee has booked Ploi No, } of Suwarnahhoomi Layout of At's. Pirapati Develapers for one of tis customers. The details are as follows Plot No. | Name ofCustomer Receipts | Date ? Sharddhe Afttesh Shukla 30.000 22. OF 2018 ds per impounded document Plot) Area af Plot "Rate | Consideration | Amount Page Ne.
Ne. sg.ft Amoutt Received ? 6663,35 300 | 29, 99.005 70,38,000 | 37 ern Plat Na. Sale Deed | Sale Deed | Survey Date | Paxe No. Amount Date i 28,07 G00 S6-G3-2019 LSIAMA2019 | 30 te 33 Page $5 --
OO? va Mfs. Sto fefretech PPA na. L235 Nad (S02 3 From the above it ix clear that the consideration amount and the rece ved amon! is auch less than the Sate Deed cmon and the 4.O. has made addition an the dasis of impounded dactunent irrespective of the fact the Sale Deed of the said Biot was executed Aefore the survey date. The axsessee has shown its income much more ay per actuad fransaction than the addition made by 4.0. on the baxis of impounded docement,
2. Decwnent No A-2/28: The assessee hes booked Plot Ne. 43 of Rajathhoori-3 feveut of S88. Tirupati Developers Jor ane af its customers. The details are as joliaws i Plot No. | Neane of Customer Receipts Date 43 Radhey Shvant Maurya SOG PEER 2075 Ax per bnpounded document Plat area of Plat: Rate | Consideration Amount Pare Ne. Na. S¢.f? Amount Received | #3 {291 48 PiQ i 9693) &, 60.000 58 Actual Mar Ne. Sale bteed | Sale Deed | Survey Date Pase No. ee Amount | Date As 820,000 S9-F2-20R | 25-06-2019 | S3 to 39 Fram the above itis clear thet the consideration amount and the received amor is much fess than the Sale Deed amount and the AG. fees made addition on the basis of gapaunded document irrespective of the fact the Sale Deed af the sald plot was executed before the survey date. The aasessee has shawn its incame auch more as per actual transaction than the addition made by 4.0. on the basis of iinpounded document.
3. Dacwnent No 4-2/1! > The assessee has baaked Plot No. 14 af Rafathhoomi-4 Lavout of Ad's. Tirupati Developers for ane of ix customers. The details are as Jollaws Plat No. | Name of Customer Receipts | Date d¢ ss; Stervakans Sudhirrage Bharne | 70.000 22.07 2018 As per Gupounded daciament Fiat Area of Plot! Rate | Consideration Amount Pare Na. Ne. Sg ft Antoni Received id 1814.60 OF | (G8i, P82 6,02, 000 al Actual Plot Na. Sale Reed i Sale Deed Survey Dawe 3? ase No. Amount Date ig 20,27, 000 S2-23-2020 | 25-GE-2019 © 39 to &3 Page | & OCIT vs Ms. Neet Infratech TA no. 125/Nag. (2023 From the above it is clear that the consideration amaunt and the received amount is much less than the Sale Deed amount and the A.Q. has made addition on the basis of impounded document. The assessee has shown its incame much more as per actual sransaction then the addition made by A.O. on the basis af gnpounded dachiment.
4. Document No 4-2/23: The assessee has booked Plot No. 70 of Silver City Layout of M/s. Tirupati Developers for one of its customers. The details are as follows Plot Ne. | Name af Custamer Receipts Date 7a Madhuri Kishore Barai 3,40, 000 £3.09. 2018 As per Gnpaunded dacument Plat Area of Plot | Rate | Consideration Amount Page Ne. Ne. Sofi Amount Received 70 | £588.01 - - 4,00,000 68 Actual Plot Na. Sale Deed | Sale Deed | Survey Date | Page Ne.
_L Amount Date 70 6,22, 000 28-03-2019 | 25-06-2019 | 66 io FC Frem the above if is clear that the consideration amount and the received amoiu is much less than the Sale Deed amount and the A.O. has made addition on the hasis of impounded document irrespective of the fact the Sale Deed of the said plot was executed before the survey date, The assessee has shown its income auch more as per actual transaction than the addition made by 4.O. on the basis af impounded document.
From the impounded documents and documents of actual transactions, if is very much clear that the impounded documents & registers having entries relating to the assessee are not matching with the actual transactions. Therefore, the impounded documents cannot be relied upan & is nat conclusive evidence Ground No. 2 & 3: Addition mace of Rs. 2,86,14,61W- being Unexplained Cash Expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act.
A.O. - Para 3- Page Na, 97 to 88 CIT {4} Page No. 23 to 36 The 4.0, has made addition of Rs. 2,86,14,610/- to the incame of the assessee as Unexplained Cash Expenditure u's. 69C af the Act, without considering the submissions of the assessée during the assessment proceedings. The said amount vias paid by customers against plot bookings, which were hooked through the assessee. The assessee submitted explanation about each transaction in the impounded document by submitting charts containing the Plot No, name of customers, amount paid to Tirupati Develapers, date af payment, Sale Deed date, Sale Consideration & share of Tirupati Develapers & share of assessee in the Sale Consideration. The A.O. not gave any cognizance to the sulynissian and Page | 7 OCIT vs M's. Neel infratech 4TA no. LIS/ Nag. £2023 added the entire amount to the incame of the assessee, as if the said amount was paid by the assesxee itself.
Document No. 4-2/12 & Document No. A-2/64: The assessee has booked Plots ia various Layouts of M's. Tirupatl Developers for its customers. It is the practice of the developer te show such hoakings in the name of Assessee Firm. As the payments are against bookings of plot from customers to Mis. Tirupati Developers the same should not have been treated as snexplained cash expenditure ws, 69C af the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the hands of assessee. The assessee has given detailed explanation regarding the entries in the impounded documents during the assessment proceedings & appellate proceedings, the submissions during the assessment proceedings are at Page No. 103 to 212, 116, & 12) to 128 af the Paper Book & submissions during the appellate assessment proceedings are at Page No. 72 to 85 af the Paper Boak.
The submissions already made are as fallaws:
I. The assessee has booked Plots in various Lavauts of M/s. Tirupati Developers for its customers, it is the practice of the develaper ta shaw such bookings in the ruume of Assessee Firm, though the payments were against bookings of plot from cusiomers to M's. Tirupati Developers.
2. The assessee is acting as the Broker/marketing associate of M's Tirupati Developer and the primary source of income for the assessee iy revenue share received from Mis Tirupati Developers which is duly offered for tax in respective AY,
3. The relationship between Mis Tirupati Developers and assessee ix similar to that of Principal and Agent, with M/s Tirupati Develapers being the principal and assessee being agent. Thus, in narmal course of business the payment would be made by the principal, Le.. M's. Tirupati Developers to the agent, e., the assessee, However, the Assessing Officer failed te comprehend the primary submission made by the assessee and has made addition on the grounds that payment has been made by agent to principal ie. by assessee to M/s Tirupati Develapers.
4. During the relevant Assessment Year, the assessee acted as Broker/marketing associate between the customers and M/s Tirupati Developers. The payments were made by the customer to M/s Tirupati Develapers because the plots had been purchased by customers who are the actual heneficiary of the plats and not the assessee. it is the normal practice of M's. Tirupati Developers ta mention the naine of the broker through whom the plot has been booked instead of the name of individual customer for the sake of convenience.
3. Therefore, addition uis 68C as unexplained expenditure in hands of assessee "is nat tenable as no payments are made by the assessee to ALS. Tirupati Developers nor any expenditure has been claimed by the assessee regarding any pavment made by the assessee.
Page | & BCIT vs M/s. Neel Infratech ITA no. 128/Nag. (2022
6. The detailed chart of the plots Nos. amowi recefved by Mis. Tirupati Developers, date of receipt, date of sale deed. amount of sale deed. the assessee's share and the shure of Tirupati Developers in the sale consideration is enclosed herewith as Annexure ¥ & Annexure V1. (Page No. 121 to 128 af paper book) ?. The assessee has shown its share ef income as per actual transactions afier execution of sale deeds in the respective years, which is much more than noted in the impounded documents.
&. The online reply was submitted by the assessee during assessment proceeding vide acknowledgement no. 93920981 F2 10122 dated 21/01/2022 and thereafter manuadly with proper explanation and reasoning. The Order has been passed on SLOS/2022 by the A.O whereas the reply was filed more than 2 months before the Order. The assessing officer while passing order stated that "However the assessee has not offered any explanation and kept silence on cash expenditure amounting to Rs, 2,86,14,610/-" is wrong. The assessing officer passed order without properly appreciating the facts and submissions of ihe assessee anid neither praviding reasons in support of his arder. Thus, the assessing officer erred in passing the order by considering partial submission of the assessee.
9. Some observations from the detailed charts Annexure ¥ & Annexure VI (Page No. £21 ta 128 of paper book) submitted at the time of assessment & appellate proceedings are as follows:
i The details mentioned at para ! above ix that, there ix difference in amount mentioned in impounded document & actual Sale Deed Amotau of Plot No. I of Suvarnabhoony Levout. The same can be cross verified from entry No. 2 of the chart placed at 122 of the paper book.
i. The details mentioned in the chart of Plot No. 122, Suvarnabhoomi Layout placed at page Na 121 of paper book shows that the antowis are received from customers of Plot the sale deed of the seume is executed on 03/01/2019. before 23/06/2019 ie., the date of survey.
ii, Also there are various sale deeds which are executed before 23/06/2019 ie., the date of survey which are mentioned in the chart placed at Page No. 121 ta 124, confirms that the payments are made by eustomers of the plots, whe are actual beneficiaries.
iv. The 4.0. has not taken efforts to verify ihe details of the actual transactions of Sale Deeds which were executed before the date of Sturvey.
From the abeve it can be very well concluded that the payments referred in impounded documents are from the customers of plots and not by the assessee, which confirms that the addition made by the 4.C. is had in lane.
Page | 9 OCIT vs Mrs, Neel Infratech LTA no. T25/Nag. f2023 Considering the said facts the CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee by deleting the addition made by the AO)"
9, As regards the addition of Rs.3,48,000/- towards estimated marketing income, he has amply demonstrated that the consideration amount and the received amount is less than the amount as per the sale deed and the Assessing Officer has made the addition irrespective of the fact that the sale deeds were executed before the date of survey. The assessee has already declared the income in his profit & loss account which is more than the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of impounded document. Thus, it is a case of double addition of the same income on a selective basis. Once the book results are accepted, it is clear that the income already disclosed takes into account the estimated income on the basis of impounded documents. Hence, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) has correctly dealt with the addition of estimated marketing income in view of the fact that the assessee has already declared the same in his regular books of account.
10. As regards the addition u/s 69C of the Act for Rs.2,86,14,610/-, it may be worthwhile to refer to Section 69C of the Income Tax Act on the very onset.
"@9C. Where in any financial year an assessee has incurred any expenditure and he affers no explanation aboul the source of such expenditure ar part thereof, ar the explanation, if any, affered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the amount covered by such expenditure or part thereof, ax the case may be, may be deemed to be the income of the assessee Jor such Jinancial year:
Pravided that, notwithstanding any contained in any other pravision of this Act, such unexplained expenditure which is deemed to be the income of the assessee shail not be allowed as a deduction under any head of income."
Ii, It is crystal clear that the assessee has explained about the source of such payment. The assessee has acted only as a conduit between the Page | 16 OCP vs Neg. Neel lefratects TTA pa. ESSANag f 202 3 purchaser and the developer. So, naturally if was not incumbent upon the assessee fo make any payment to M/s. Tirupati Developers, because he is not the ullimate purchaser of the plot. The assessee only acts as a marketing agent and only 40% of his share as marketing income in respect of payment received from the customer is baoked as incame. Even if for argument sake we assume that there is an unaccounted cash receipt in the hands of M/s. Tirupati Developers, it is apparent that the appellant has got no rele in such payment because his duty is only to find out the potential customers and to take them to the developer for ultimate registration of plots. He is only a meeting point and there is no question of him making the investment. The very business model of the appellant is never in doubt. It is axiomatic that the so called cash payment as per the impounded document must have generated from the purchasers of the plots. The assessee from the very beginning of the proceeding has been clear in his approach and has denied that he has made the investment. An entry in the documents from the custody of third parties must be corroborated substantially to establish the very factum of transaction. In fact, assessee has been frank enough to disclose the name of the customer who has made the cash payment to him for handing over to M/s. Tirupati Developers. The Assessing Officer had all the information with him to make further inquiry and investigation to test the veracity of the submission. But he maintained as stark silence. Ne neither verified the fact from M/s. Tirupati Developers nor from the customer whose name was before him. Even learned Sr.DR failed to throw any light about the stand of the revenue in case of M/s. Tirupati Developers who has received the money. [is apparent that there are very loose ends to this entire investigation process and the AQ has failed to apply his mind. The impounded documents recovered from a third party has been accepted to be Page { il EXOT wa ais, Moet fotratect FFA po, 2235/ Rag (2s sacrosanct and the same is tested against the assessee. In spite of agsessee's denial, no inquiry was made at all, {tis not the case of the revenue that the land was actually purchased by the assessee. There is ne logic as t) why a person should make such a huge payment and still not purchased the land mm his own name. ft is also not the case of the revenue that the assessee has understated his income in any manner whatsoever as recorded in the regular books of account. The very invocation of Section 69C is fragile and is muisconceived because the assessee has never incurred any expenditure from his own resources. He is only acting as an agent and has dutifully handed aver the money to his principal. It is the plot holders who has invested the money, but for reasons unknown no action was taken by the department against them and only the addition has been sustained by the Assessing Officer because in the impounded document the name of the assessee had appeared, The assessee has given very cagent and plausible explanation that his name was appearing because all the customers were introduced by him and fo keep a close control over the amount of commission that has to be paid to him, all the payments were booked under his name. 'This is a very commen accounting treatment for this type of busmess, because the principal must be informed about the quantum of business generated by the agent so that he can be correethy remunerated. The agent also on the other hand has his own information system to keep a tab on the volume of business generated by him so that it can be matched with the principal and there is no dispute about the generation of the commission. When these glaring facts were before the Assessing Officer and he did not apply his mind, there is no question of giving him a second innings to verify the Information once again after the limitation period of assessment was expired long back as per the suggestion of Sr.DR. The Jearned Sr.DR pointed out that in real estate Page | 12 DCT ws is, Neel Infrateet TA oa. PES Neg (7 O23 industry, there is an ample generation of cash transaction and henoe the impounded documents have an evidentiary value. But he has failed te draw our attention to any corroborative evidences to justify the entries in the impounded documents.
i2, Be itas may, under the Income Tax Act, it is the prime responsibility to tax the correct person, The generation of cash was from the investors of the plot and the assessee has no role for the same. The understatement of sale consideration, if any, can lead to an income in the hands of the developer, and not on the assessee. The learned AR has also placed the series of judgements, as follows.
Ho Han"be Delhi High Court Order in the case of CYT vs. DUK Gupta HU] Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad Order in the case of Prarthana Construction (P} Ltd vs, DCIT HQ) Hon'ble FTAT, Jedhpur Order in the case of JRC Bhandari and $.C. Sethi vs. ACIT IV] Hon'ble TAT, Mumbat Order in the case of Spartex (ndia}(P} Lid vs. DCTT V] Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad Order in the case of Nagarjuna Construction Co. Lid vs. DCIT VI} Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Order in the case of Yash Pal Narendra Kumar vs. Department of Income Tax Vi} Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Order in the case of Ashvini Kumar vs. Income Tax Officer VOUT Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore Order in the case of Additional Income Tax Officer vs T.Mudduveerappa Sons iX] Hon'ble ITAT, Jainur order in the case of Jai Kumar faim ws ACTYT Page | 13 GCI? vs Ms. Amey infratech ITA ne. 225/Nag. (2023 X] Hon'ble Bombay High Court order in case of PCIT Vs. Hasan Al Khan 426 ITR 546 (2020) We find that the CIT(A) has already taken into consideration some of the judgments while passing its order i.e. Non'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad Order in the case of Prarthana Construction (P) Lid vs. DCIT and Hon'ble TTAT, Jodhpur Order in the case of J-R-C.Bhandari and S.C, Sethi vs, ACTT.
13. In the ight of above discussion, we feel that no interference at this stage is called for in the cogent and watertight order of the CIT(A). All the grounds of the revenue are dismissed. The CIT(A) enjoys a coterminous power with that of AO. He has applied his mind and with diligence arrived at an incisive conclusion which cannot be tnkered upon without any justifiable reasons. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
14. In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 31/07/2024.
Sd/- Sd/-
¥. DURGA RAO KLM. ROY JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 31/07/2024 Page | i¢ Conv of the arder forwarded to:
() (2) (3) od,
6) The Assessee;
The Revenue, The PCIT / CIT (fudicial);
The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and Guard file.
Rajesh ¥. Jalit Private Secretary (On contract) DCIT vs M/s. Neel Infratech ITA no. 125/Nag./2023 True Copy By Order Sr. Private Secretary TAT, Nagpur Page | 15