AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 655
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record. Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted copies of ITAT 'E' Bench, New Delhi in assessee's own cases for AY 1997-98 dated 30.5.2008 in ITA No. 937/Del/2006 (revenue's appeal) and order dated 8.8.2013 in ITA No. 739/Del/2006 (assessee's appeal) in the same assessment year i.e. 1997-98. Ld. Counsel of the assessee also submitted a copy of the decision of ITAT Chandigarh 'B' Bench dated 9.11.2006 in IT(SS)A No. 38, 39 and 40/Chandi/2005 in the case of ACIT, Central Circle- I, Ludhiana vs Chavan Rishi International, New Delhi. Ld. Counsel submitted that the department reopened assessment of the assessee for 1997-98, which is also a year of block period reckoning from 1.4.1996 to 20.9.2002 for the proceedings u/s 158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 u/s 147/148 of the Act and the AO during reassessment proceedings made two additions viz. the first addition of Rs. 11,70,56,000 made on account of receipt from M/s Mittal Group of Companies and second addition of Rs. 73,50,000 on account of alleged unaccounted receipt. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the department filed ITA No.937/D/2006....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act in the case of seller i.e. the assessee M/s Ardee Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. have not been found to be sustainable by ITAT 'E' Bench New Delhi in assessee's appeals in ITA No. 937/Del/2006 order dated 30.05.2008 (supra) and in ITA No. 739/D/2006 dated 8.8.2013 (supra) and additions made by the AO and deleted by the CIT(A) in the case of purchaser viz. Chavan Rishi International have been deleted by the ITAT Chandigarh 'B' Bench order dated 9.11.2006 (supra), then the same addition on the same count and issues made by the AO during block assessment proceedings u/s 158BD/158BC of the Act and upheld by the CIT(A) by the impugned order are not sustainable, therefore, the same may be directed to be deleted. 5. Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below and fairly accepted that the additions made during reassessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act made by the AO have been finally found to be not sustainable by the ITAT 'E' Bench, Delhi. The DR has also not disputed this fact that the additions made by the AO and deleted by the CIT(A) in the case of purchaser viz. Chavan Rishi International have been finally not found to be s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....closing balance and even the total has not been done but in the case of proper cash book_total of the receipts and the payments side is always equal since the balance between receipts and payments reflects the closing cash in hand. So, it cannot be said that the document "A-I page 5" was the copy of the cashbook. Now the question arises - whether the entries mentioned in the document reflected that market value of various properties or those were the actual value. In the said document, three entries mentioned at Ardee 850.20, SL-III 56,14 and M, Filed 72.00 are only the subject matter of adjudication before us. The claim of the assessee was that those entries were the market value while the AO opined that those were actual value in the codes and 850.20 stands for Rs. 8,50,20,000/- like wise 56.14 stands for Rs. G6, 14,0001- and 72.00 stands for Rs. 72.00 lacs. 10.1 In the present case, it is not in dispute that the value of the property purchased from HUDA has been accepted at Rs. 31,00 lacs which is the amount paid by the assessee to the Haryana Government whereas the entry on the document AI-5 reflected the figure at 132.00 i.e. Rs. 1 crore 32 lacs. Similarly the value of the sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stated in his earlier statement that he along with his family members had paid Rs. 2000/- per sq. yd. over and above the documented price of the plot, if that statement was to be taken as true even-then rate of the plot should have been at Rs. 30001- per S9.yd since the plots were purchased @Rs. 1,000/- per sq.yd_ However, the AO had taken the value @s. 4533/- per sq.yd . Moreover, the statement had been retracted subsequently by Shri J.C. Malhotra. It is relevant to point out that Shri J.C. Malhotra was not the witness of the assessee but of the department. The contention of the Id. Counsel for the assessee that out of 298 plots, 146 plots were sold by Ardee group of companies @Rs. 1,000/- per S9.yd. which is the rate given by the assessee, had not been rebutted. Out of those 146 plots, the name of the assessee appeared at 36 places only. So, it cannot be said that the assessee only paid extra money because there were another comparable instances where the same rate had been paid by other persons. It is true that the value of plot depends upon so many factors like development of the area, location of the site, facilities available etc. In the instant case, this contention of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and value of shares & FDRs. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. 10. From the above observations it can be seen that in respect of seized paper on the basis of which the addition is made in the case of the assessee, coordinate Bench has held that the entries mentioned In the seized document were not the actual value, but the fair market value (para 10.1) and the contention of the assessee that the land purchase in 1995-96 gave an average rate of Rs. 530 per sq. yd. and some land also gave average rate of Rs. 200 per sq. yd was not rebutted (para 10.2). That the addition was made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of presumption as he presumed that the entries mentioned in the seized document {A-1, page 5) reflected actual cost against the claim of the assessee that it was market price and the Assessing Officer while treating these entries as actual cost ignored the vital fact that for some other entries noted on the same paper, it had been considered that the value was not actual but the market value and such instances were of investment in HUDA, Agra property and value of shares and FDRs. It was, therefore, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....J.C. Malhotra of Rs. 73.50 lacs on the basis of statement which was subsequently retracted was not tenable. Since the addition of Rs. 73.50 lacs in the case of the assessee is based upon the addition in the hands of Sh. J.c. Malhotra, this addition cannot survive in view of the Settlement Commission's order as above. Ld. Departmental Representative fairly agreed that the issue is now covered in favour of the assessee . 8. In the background of the aforesaid discussion and precedents, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee." 8. We further observe that the ITAT, Chandigarh 'B' Bench in the case of purchaser i.e. Chavan Rishi International order dated 9.11.2006 (supra) have upheld the conclusion of the CIT(A) which deleted similar addition made in the hands of purchaser Chavan Rishi International. The relevant operative part of this order reads as under:- "10.4 Similar was the position with regard to the investment in "M Field and Uppal". The Assessing Officer had not given any basis on which the rate per sq yd was worked out at Rs. 3160 instead of Rs. 1,000/- declared by the assessee on the basis of registered deed. The A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tual value was supported by the registered deed and had been confirmed by the seller of the property. No addition has been made in the hands of the seller. If any payment was to be made over and above the price quoted then that was to be made to the seller of the property but nothing had been brought on record that the same amount had been considered as income in the hands of the seller of the property. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any merit in this appeal of the department. 11. The facts relating to another appeals i.e. in IT(SS) A No. 38 & 40/Chand/2005 are the same and even the rival contentions were also similar, therefore, our findings given in the former part of this order in respect of IT(SS) A No. 39 /Chandi/2005 shall apply mutatis mutandis for these two appeals also." 9. In view of above orders of ITAT Delhi 'E' Bench in the case of the assessee for AY 1997-98, we note that the additions made by the AO during reassessment proceedings u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act have not been found to be sustainable and both the additions were demolished at the level of Tribunal. From a copy of the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 4.4.2011 in ITA No. 412/2009, a....