TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1401
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of appeal:- "1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 29,35,260 /- made u/s 50C/69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of investment in purchase of property at B-41, Chander Nagar, Ghaziabad without appreciating the fact that the real investment exceeds the investment shown in the assessee's books of accounts. 2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,05,71,018/- made on account of apportionment of suppressed sales/receipts as worked out on the basis of seized material and the statement of the Director of the company recorded u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and as worke....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 29,35,260/- made by the A.O. u/s 50C/69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account following accounts:- a) Section 50C is not applicable to the appellant being purchaser of the properties; b) There is nothing on the records which may suggest any investment/expenditure outside the books as alleged. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 6,05,71,018/- made by the A.O." 4. During the course of hearing the assessee submitted a prayer for admission of additional grounds as under:- "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) has erred in law ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as per order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 10.09.2007 w.e.f 01.04.2006. During the course of search, the statement of Mr. Amit Jain was recorded, wherein, vide question No. 5 he was asked about the companies and there he stated that Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd, the assessee, has merged with Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd. Despite the above information available with the ld AO, the assessment u/s 153A was passed by the ld AO in the name of Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd (represented by Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd after amalgamation). This is contested by the assessee and submitted that such orders cannot be sustained as the company has already been merged with another company and it did not exist on the date of order. The ld AR submitted that orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Vs. Cit 247 ITR 500 as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Dimension Apparel Pvt. Ltd 370 ITR 288. On the last decision Hon'ble Delhi High Court has considered the whole issue from all the angles and therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, we are of the view that the order of the ld AO is unsustainable. 12. The revenue has raised the issue that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Skylight Hospitality LLP has dismissed the SLP filed by the assessee against the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 02.02.2018, wherein it has been held that merely wrong name given in the notice is a clerical error which could be rectified u/s 292B of the Act. The a....