TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 671
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and correct. Learned AR of the assessee reiterated the contentions raised before CIT (A). He also placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements:- a) Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 52 Taxman.com 220 (Delhi) b) DSL Properties (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, 60 SOT 88 (Del Trib.) c) Natural Products BioTech Ltd.vs.DCIT,53Taxmann.com400(Del Trib.) d) ACIT vs. Global Estate 142 ITD 740 (Agra Trib.) e) CIT vs. Gopi Apartment 365 ITR 411 (Allahabad) f) DCITvs.QualitronCommodities(P) Ltd.,54Taxmann.com295(Del Trib.) g) Pepsi India Holdings (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 228 Taxman.com 116 (Delhi) 4. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the orders passed by the authorities below. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in the case of Pepsi Food (Supra) , Hon'ble Delhi High Court has considered a judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. classic Enterprises, 358 ITR 465 (All.). Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed in Para 7 that this judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court is in context of section 158 BD and therefore this judgment does not come to aid of the revenue in a case u/s 153C. But when we gone through this judgment of Hon'ble All....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by learned AR of the assessee regarding this issue that the offer was made by the assessee before Settlement Commission to avoid botheration and buy peace but later on, the assessee got legal advice that there was no need to offer additional income before Settlement Commission and to pay tax thereon because in fact, there was no additional income. He submitted that the petition was held invalid by Settlement Commission for want of payment of admitted tax. He also submitted that no incriminating material was found in search and there is no basis of offer before Settlement Commission and therefore, the addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by learned CIT (A) on the basis of mere offer before Settlement Commission is not justified. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the orders passed by the authorities below. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that as per sub section (3) to section 245HA, the A.O. can use all material and other information produced by the assessee before the Settlement Commission. This is not in dispute that the assessee provided this information before Settlement Commission about his additional income. Since, the assessee did not provide the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....specific, it has to be accepted that part of such income might have been earned in these earlier years and hence, in view of these peculiar facts, we grant telescoping and direct the A.O. that the additions confirmed by learned CIT (A) in A. Y. 1999 - 2000 to 2003 - 04 as noted above should be considered as part of surrender before Settlement Commission and therefore, the net addition in this year is confirmed to the extent of Rs. 344000 only (Rs. 438500 - 94500). 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed. 13. Now, we take up the appeal in the case of Sri Rajjan Lal Vinod Gupta (HUF) for A.Y. 2005 - 06 in ITA No. 504/Lkw/2013. It was agreed by both sides that the facts and dispute in this case are identical to the facts and dispute in the case of Sri Ram Singhare Yadav in ITA No. 503/Lkw/2013 and this appeal can be decided on same line. In that case, we have approved the validity of Notice u/s 153C and have also upheld the addition on substantive basis in A.Y. 2005 - 06 in respect of offer before Settlement Commission. We have also allowed telescoping in that case. On same line, in this case also, all three issues are decided and net addition of Rs. 407,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve also upheld the addition on substantive basis in A.Y. 2005 - 06 in respect of offer before Settlement Commission. We have also allowed telescoping in that case. On same line, in this case also, all three issues are decided and net addition of Rs. 317,500 is confirmed in A.Y. 2005 - 06 on substantive basis being Rs. 421,000 offered before Settlement Commission Less the addition of Rs. 5,000 in A.Y. 1999 - 2000 and Rs. 103,500 in A.Y. 2001 - 02 confirmed by Learned CIT (A). Since telescoping of addition confirmed in A.Y. 2001 - 02 of Rs. 103,500 is allowed in A.Y. 2005 - 06, the appeal in A.Y. 2001 02 is dismissed. 20. In addition to this, there is one more issue in this case regarding confirming of addition of Rs. 7,500 in A.Y. 2005 - 06 by estimating the receipts. On this issue, we find no infirmity in the order of learned CIT (A). 21. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2001 - 02 is dismissed and for A.Y. 2005 - 06 is partly allowed. 22. Now, we take up two appeals in the case of Rajjan Lal Vinod Neeraj Gupta (HUF) for A.Y. 2001 - 02 in ITA No. 509/Lkw/2013 and for A.Y. 2005 - 06 in ITA No. 510/Lkw/2013. It was agreed by both sides that the facts and dispute i....