TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1448
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)-II, Delhi's order dated 30.04.2012 in case No. 76/11-12, in proceedings u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 3. The Revenue's instant appeal ITA No. 3664/Del/2012 raises the following substantive grounds: "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 (Appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to Rs. 30,00,000/- and therefore, we are of the considered view that the impugned addition has been rightly deleted. The Revenue's instant first and foremost substantive ground is rejected therefore. 6. Next comes the second issue of apportionment of suppressed sales/receipts amounting to Rs. 6,05,71,018/- made in the course of assessment and deleted in the lower appellate proceedings as follows: "15. The grounds of appeal No. 8, 9 & 10 relates to addition of Rs. 6,05,71,018/- on account of apportionment of impugned suppressed sales/receipts as determined by the A.O. in the para No. 6-8 of assessment order. Such addition has been made by the A.O. relying upon the seized material and the statement of directors of the company reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther the addition on account of undisclosed income was made on the basis of incriminating materials qua the assessment years involved. The CIT(A) has very elaborately discussed the issue of addition of Rs 49,78,15,413/- as undisclosed income based on suppressed sales/receipts spread over the block period from AY 2004-05 to AY 2009-10. At para 15 of his order, the CIT(A) has described the basis of addition made by the Assessing Officer and the basis of Special Auditor's working of the suppressed sales. 43. We have incorporated the findings of the CIT(A) as above in our order which may be summarized as under: 1. The auditor in the course of special audit, has determined the suppressed receipts/sale/extrapolated sales at Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome as determined above of Rs 17,97,85,305/- will be taxed on the receipt basis in the respective year of its receipts as reflected in the seized documents itself as against the offer made by the appellant for search year (A.Y. 2009-10) as per detail as under: A.Y Additional income Cumulative income 2007-08 2,18,19,636.00 2,18,19,636.00 2008-09 9,31,79,939.00 11,49,99,575.00 2009-10 6,47,85,730.00 17,97,85,305.00 TOTAL 17,97,85,305.00 44. We note that the finding of the CIT(A) is that the AO has extrapolated the 'suppressed sales' found in the diary impounded during survey u/s 133A and the seized documents to arrive at the undisclosed income for the impugned AYs. We also note th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... basis of seized material qua the assessment years involved and accordingly we direct the AO to delete the addition on account of suppressed sales for both the AYs." 8. We accordingly conclude that given the fact that the seized material herein does not indicate any actual amount received in the relevant previous year, the Revenue's instant ground seeking to extrapolation thereof by way of apportionment deserves to be rejected as per learned co-ordinate bench foregoing detailed discussion. Ordered accordingly. 9. Lastly comes the Revenue's third substantive ground that we ought to revive section 14A disallowance of Rs. 4,64,576/- wherein the assessee has not derived any exempt income. That being the case, we quote Cheminvest Limited v....