ACIT, Meerut v. M/s. HRC Engineers Estate (P) Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 3627/DEL/2009 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2012 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 362720114 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AABCH4378J
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3627/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, Meerut
Respondent M/s. HRC Engineers Estate (P) Ltd, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-02-2012
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 29-02-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 15-02-2012
Next Hearing Date 15-02-2012
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 24-08-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI C BENC H BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI JM & SHRI A.N. PAHUJA A M ITA NO.3627/D/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 ASSTT. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE MEERUT V/S . M/S HRC ENGINEERS ESTATE P. LTD. 914 NEW DELHI HOUSE BARAKHAMBA RD. NEW DELHI [PAN:AABCH 4378 J] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI O.P. SAPRA AR REVENUE BY SHRI RIS GILL DR DATE OF HEARING 15-02-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29-02-2012 O R D E R A.N.PAHUJA:- THIS APPEAL FILED ON 24 TH AUGUST 2009 BY THE REVENUE AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 2 ND JUNE 2009 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-MEERUT RAISES THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS:- 1 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` `32 82 738/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED ON MONEY RECEIPT TREATI NG IT TO BE EXPLAINED ON THE GROUND THAT THE RECEIPTS WERE ACCOUNTED FOR WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT T HE SAID RECEIPTS WERE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH AS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN PARA (II) TO (XIV) OF THE A SSESSMENT ORDER. 2 THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-III MEERUT BEIN G ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS BE VACATED AND/THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3 THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND ANYONE O R MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL AS STATED ABOVE AS AND WH EN NEED FOR DOING SO MAY ARISE. I.T.A. NO.3627/DEL./2009 2 SUBSEQUENTLY VIDE LETTER DATED 31.5.2010 THE AFORE SAID GROUNDS WERE REVISED IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE A DDITION OF ` ` 2 75 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED ON MONEY REC EIPT IN RESPECT OF FLAT NO.B-301 TREATING IT TO BE EXPLA INED ON THE GROUND THAT THE RECEIPTS WERE ACCOUNTED FOR WITHOU T APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAID RECEIPTS WERE R ECORDED IN THE BOOKS AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH AS CLEARLY MENTI ONED IN PARA (II) TO (XIV) OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THAT THIS DIFFERENCE WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE BOOKING FORMS SEIZE D AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND THE AMOUNT FOUND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF ` ` 2 75 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED ON MONEY REC EIPT IN RESPECT OF FLAT NO.B-303 TREATING IT TO BE EXPLA INED ON THE GROUND THAT THE RECEIPTS WERE ACCOUNTED FOR WITHOU T APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAID RECEIPTS WERE R ECORDED IN THE BOOKS AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH AS CLEARLY MENTI ONED IN PARA (II) TO (XIV) OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THAT THIS DIFFERENCE WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE BOOKING FORMS SEIZE D AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND THE AMOUNT FOUND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF ` `96 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED ON MONEY RECE IPT IN RESPECT OF FLAT NO.B-403 TREATING IT TO BE EXPLAINE D ON THE GROUND THAT THE RECEIPTS WERE ACCOUNTED FOR WITHOU T APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAID RECEIPTS WERE R ECORDED IN THE BOOKS AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH AS CLEARLY MENTI ONED IN PARA (II) TO (XIV) OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THAT THIS DIFFERENCE WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE BOOKING FORMS SEIZE D AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND THE AMOUNT FOUND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF ` ` 80 500/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED ON MONEY RECEI PT IN RESPECT OF FLAT NO.A-604 TREATING IT TO BE EXPLAINE D ON THE GROUND THAT THE RECEIPTS WERE ACCOUNTED FOR WITHOU T APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAID RECEIPTS WERE R ECORDED IN THE BOOKS AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH AS CLEARLY MENTI ONED IN PARA (II) TO (XIV) OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THAT THIS I.T.A. NO.3627/DEL./2009 3 DIFFERENCE WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE BOOKING FORMS SEIZE D AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND THE AMOUNT FOUND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF ` ` 65 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED ON MONEY RECEI PT IN RESPECT OF FLAT NO.A-403 TREATING IT TO BE EXPLAINE D ON THE GROUND THAT THE RECEIPTS WERE ACCOUNTED FOR WITHOU T APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAID RECEIPTS WERE R ECORDED IN THE BOOKS AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH AS CLEARLY MENTI ONED IN PARA (II) TO (XIV) OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THAT THIS DIFFERENCE WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE BOOKING FORMS SEIZE D AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND THE AMOUNT FOUND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 6. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF ` `1 20 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED ON MONEY RE CEIPT IN RESPECT OF FLAT NO.B-1101 TREATING IT TO BE EXPL AINED ON THE GROUND THAT THE RECEIPTS WERE ACCOUNTED FOR WI THOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAID RECEIPTS WERE R ECORDED IN THE BOOKS AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH AS CLEARLY MENTI ONED IN PARA (II) TO (XIV) OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THAT THIS DIFFERENCE WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE BOOKING FORMS SEIZE D AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND THE AMOUNT FOUND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 7. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF ` `1 00 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED ON MONEY RE CEIPT IN RESPECT OF FLAT NO.B-1001 TREATING IT TO BE EXPL AINED ON THE GROUND THAT THE RECEIPTS WERE ACCOUNTED FOR WI THOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAID RECEIPTS WERE R ECORDED IN THE BOOKS AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH AS CLEARLY MENTI ONED IN PARA (II) TO (XIV) OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THAT THIS DIFFERENCE WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE BOOKING FORMS SEIZE D AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND THE AMOUNT FOUND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 8. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF ` `50 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED ON MONEY RECE IPT IN RESPECT OF FLAT NO.A-304 TREATING IT TO BE EXPLAINE D ON THE GROUND THAT THE RECEIPTS WERE ACCOUNTED FOR WITHOU T APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAID RECEIPTS WERE R ECORDED IN I.T.A. NO.3627/DEL./2009 4 THE BOOKS AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH AS CLEARLY MENTI ONED IN PARA (II) TO (XIV) OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THAT THIS DIFFERENCE WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE BOOKING FORMS SEIZE D AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND THE AMOUNT FOUND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 9. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF ` `9 00 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED ON MONEY RE CEIPT IN RESPECT OF SHOP NO.UG-14 TREATING IT TO BE EXPLA INED ON THE GROUND THAT THE SALE OF THIS SHOP WAS BOOKED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH WITHOUT APPRECIA TING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ITSELF DECLARED PART OF THE UNACCOUNTED MONEY ON SALE OF THIS SHOP AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH. 10. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE A DDITION OF ` `1 95 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED ON MONEY RE CEIPT IN RESPECT OF CAR PARKING CHARGES RELATED WITH SALE OF FLATS NO.B-704 B-804 A-401 A-202 AND B-703 TREATING IT TO BE EXPLAINED ON THE GROUND THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE REC EIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR 2007. 11. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE A DDITION OF ` `92 813/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED ON MONEY RECE IPT IN RESPECT OF FLAT NO.A-704 TREATING IT TO BE EXPLAINE D ON THE GROUND THAT THE RECEIPTS WERE ACCOUNTED FOR WITHOU T APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAID RECEIPTS WERE R ECORDED IN THE BOOKS AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH AS CLEARLY MENTI ONED IN PARA (II) TO (XIV) OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THAT THIS DIFFERENCE WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF TWO DIFFERENT AMOUNTS RECORDED IN TWO DIFF ERENT BOOKING FORMS SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. 12. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) BEING ERRONEOU S IN LAW AND ON FACTS BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 13. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND ANYONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL AS STATED ABOVE AS AND WHEN NEED FOR DOING SO MAY ARISE. 2. ADVERTING FIRST TO GROUND NOS.1 AND 2 IN THE AP PEAL FACTS IN BRIEF AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT A SEARCH U/S 132 OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE I.T.A. NO.3627/DEL./2009 5 AND THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF ITS DIRECTORS ON 24 .03.2006 WHEN CASH OF ` ` 35.50 LACS WAS SEIZED. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH A NUM BER OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND. CONSEQUENTLY A NOTICE U/S 1 53A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 10 TH SEPTEMBER 2007. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN DECLARING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ` `2 65 84 517 ON 22.11.2007. ON PERUSAL OF THE SEIZ ED DOCUMENTS THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O. IN SHORT) NO TICED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED ON MONEY OF ` ` 10 89 925/- ON SALE OF FLATS OTHER THAN THE SHOPS A ND FLATS FOR WHICH ASSESSEE DISCLOSED ON MONEY OF ` ` 2 50 00 000/-. SINCE THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN FORM-1 AND FORM-2 SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH WAS AT VARIANCE WITH THE AMOUNT DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECONCILE SAID RECEIPTS VIS--VIS THE AMOUNT REFLEC TED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE AO ADDED AN AMOUNT OF ` `10 89 925/- AS DETAILED HEREUNDER:- [IN ` ] S.NO. FLAT NO. AS PER SEIZED MATERIAL (COST) AS PER SEIZED MATERIAL (COST) AS PER RECORD IN BOOKS DIFFERENCE DUE TO PARKING & CLUB MEMBERSHIP FORM-1 FORM-II 1 VS/B-301 13 10 000 9 70 000 10 35 000 2 75 000 2 VS/B-303 10 35 000 9 70 000 10 35 000 2 75 000 3 VS/B-403 10 56 000 9 60 000 9 60 000 96 000 4 VS/A-604 24 50 500 23 70 000 23 70 500 80 500 5 PP/B-402 20 02 500 19 75 000 19 75 000 27 500 6 PP/A-403 17 49 375 16 84 376 16 84 375 65 000 7 PP/B-1101 20 16 575 20 16 575 1 20 925 8 PD/B-1001 19 60 000 18 60 000 19 60 000 1 00 000 9 FF/A-304 18 00 000 17 50 000 18 00 000 50 000 TOTAL 10 89 925 2.1 THE AO FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD SHOP NO.UG-14 TO SHRI SUNIL KUMAR FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` `22 LACS BUT THE STATEMENT FURNISHED BEFORE THE ADIT(INV.) REVEALED THAT THE SAID SHOP W AS VACANT. ON PERUSAL OF PAGE 2 OF ANNEXURE-A-18 AND PAGE 28 OF ANNEXURE-A-1 0 IT TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF ` 11 LACS BY WAY OF ON MONEY. SHRI SUNIL KUMAR ALSO PURCHASED SHOP NO.UG-5 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` ` 19 LACS BUT IN THE BOOKS I.T.A. NO.3627/DEL./2009 6 ONLY ` ` 11 LACS WERE RECORDED. OUT OF ` ` 10 LACS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER PAGE 2 OF ANNEXURE-A-18 AN AMOUNT OF ` ` 8 LACS WAS ON MONEY FOR SHOP NO.UG-5 AND 2 LACS FOR SHOP NO. UG-14 AND THIS SUM OF ` ` 10 LACS WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER THE DIFFERENCE O F ` `9 LACS IN RESPECT OF ON MONEY FOR SHOP NO.UG-5 WAS NOT SURRENDERED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER ANY EXPLANATION BEFORE THE AO THE AMOUNT OF ` ` 9 LACS WAS ADDED TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 2.2 THE AO FURTHER NOTICED ON PERUSAL OF PAGE NO.5 4 OF ANNEXURE-A-5 THAT FLAT NO.PP/B-704 WAS SOLD TO SHRI RAJESH KUMAR BANSAL WHO PAID ` ` 45 000/- FOR CAR PARKING. SIMILARLY SHRI RAJENDER MITTAL PA ID AN AMOUNT OF ` ` 25 000/- FOR CAR PARKING IN RESPECT OF FLAT NO.PP/B-804 AS REVEA LED FROM PAGE NO.68 OF ANNEXURE NO.A-5 AND SHRI RUPESH MAHAJAN PAID AN AMO UNT OF ` `45 000/- FOR CAR PARKING IN RESPECT OF FLAT NO. PP/A-401 AS REVEALE D FROM PAGE 23 OF ANNEXURE-A- 5. SHRI JAGDISH NARAIN SINGH ALSO PAID AN AMOUNT O F ` ` 35 000/- FOR CAR PARKING IN RESPECT OF FLAT NO. PP/A-202 AS REVEALED FROM PAGE NO.6 OF ANNEXURE NO.A-5 WHILE SHRI ANOOP AGGARWAL PAID AN AMOUNT OF ` ` 45 000/- FOR CAR PARKING IN RELATION TO FLAT NO.PP/B-703. SINCE THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT ACCOUNT FOR THESE AMOUNTS IN ITS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AN AMOUNT OF ` 1 95 000/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME. 2.3 THE AO FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT REFLECT AN AMOUNT OF ` `92 813 (`18 56 250 - `17 63 437) ON ACCOUNT OF FLA T NO.PP/A-704 SOLD TO SHRI HIMANSHU KUMAR SAXENA. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THE FLAT WAS SOLD TO SMT. RAMKALI AND SHRI CHANDRA BHAN SINGH AND NOT TO SHRI HIMANSHU SAXENA FOR ` ` 18 56 250/- THE AO ADDED THE DIFFERENCE OF ` `92 813/- AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME HAVING NOT BEEN REFLECTED IN BOOKS. 3 ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS: I.T.A. NO.3627/DEL./2009 7 3. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FACTS OF THE CASE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLAN T AND THE COPIES OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND OTHER RELEVANT RECORDS P RODUCED IN THE PAPER BOOK ENCLOSED THEREWITH AND AFTER DUE CONSIDE RATION THEREOF I DECIDE THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE ME AS UNDER:- ADDITION OF ` ` 10 89 925/-: THIS ADDITION IS CONSTITUTED BY 9 DIFFERENT FIGURES ON THE BASIS OF BOOKING FORMS FOU ND IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. ITEM-WISE OBSER VATIONS AND DECISIONS ARE AS UNDER:- I) ADDITION OF ` ` 2 75 000/- EACH MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOOKING APPLICATION FORMS OF FLAT NO.VS/B-301 AND FLAT NO. VS/B-303:- THE AO HAS TAKEN THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS ` 10 35 000/- AND HAS PROCEEDED TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF ALLEGED DIFFERENCE OF ` ` 2 75 000/- IN SEIZED TWO FORMS OF ` ` 13 10 000/- AND ` ` 10 35 000/- RESPECTIVELY. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF T HE BOOKING PARTIES FROM WHICH IT IS APPARENT THAT BEFO RE THE DATE OF SEARCH THE AMOUNTS RECORDED AS RECEIVED WERE ` ` 13 10 000/- EACH AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF ` ` 2 75 000/- EACH BASED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ADI SECTION DURING POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS DO NOT DESERVE TO BE UPHELD. AS THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED AT ` ` 13 10 000/- EACH AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE DATE OF SEAR CH ITSELF NO ADVERSE VIEW CAN BE TAKEN AND THE ADDITI ONS OF ` ` 2 75 000/- EACH ARE HEREBY DELETED. II) ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCES OF ` 96 000/- ` ` 80 500/- ` ` 27 500/- AND ` `65 000/- IN FLAT NO.VS/B- 403 VS/A-604 PP/B-402 AND PP/A-403. A) DIFFERENCE OF ` `96 000/-: THE AMOUNT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO FIGURES RECORDED ON THE ONLY FORM ONE AT ` 9 60 000/- AND THE OTHER AT ` ` 10 56 000/-.THE DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT TO BE THE DIFFERENCE ON ACCOUNT OF PARKING SPACE OR CLUB MEMBERSHIP ETC. THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE SAID BOOKING PARTY SHOWS THAT THE SUM OF ` `30 000/- WAS RECEIVED TOWARDS PARKING SPACE FROM THE SAID PARTY ON 1.4.2007. THIS FACT SHOWS THAT THERE WAS NO FINALITY IN THE BOOKING AMOUNT OF ` `9 60 000/- AND/OR I.T.A. NO.3627/DEL./2009 8 ` 10 56 000/- AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF ` ` 96 000/- IS HEREBY DELETED. B) DIFFERENCE OF ` `80 000/- IS APPARENT FROM APPLICATION FORM ITSELF ON WHICH THE AMOUNT IS WRITTEN AGAINST CAR PARKING AND CLUB MEMBERSHIP. THE SAID AMOUNT OF ` `80 000/- HAS BEEN CHARGED BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE BOOKING PARTY ON 1.4.2006 AND HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT THROUGH PROPER BANKING CHANNEL ON 17.2.2007. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS AND THE FACT THAT NO ON MONEY WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED WITH REFERENCE TO THE SAID FLAT THE ADDITION OF ` `80 500/- IS UNJUST AND IS HEREBY DELETED. THE DIFFERENCE OF ` ` 500/- SEEMS TO HAVE WRONGLY BEEN WORKED OUT BY MAKING A MISTAKE WHILE DEDUCTING THE AMOUNT OF ` `23 70 500/- FROM ` `24 50 500/- WHICH IS ACTUALLY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. .. D) DIFFERENCE OF ` ` 65 000/- IN FLAT NO.PPA-403: IS ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF COVERED PARKING AS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE APPLICATION FORM FOUND AND SEIZED. THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEBITED BY THE APPELLANT TO THE BOOKING PARTYS ACCOUNT ON 1.4.2006 AS IS APPARENT FROM THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE SAID PARTY ON RECORD. AS NO ON MONEY RECEIPT IS FOUND RECORDED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL WITH REFERENCE TO THE SAID FLAT NO ADDITION ON THAT ACCOUNT IS CALLED FOR AND THE SAME IS HEREBY DELETED. III) DIFFERENCE OF ` ` 1 20 925/- IS IN THE FIGURES AS PER SEIZED FORM AND AS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT . THE FLAT IS SOLD TO SHRI GANESH MOHAN WHOSE APPLICATION FORM FOR AN AMOUNT OF ` `20 16 575/- IS FOUND AND SEIZED AND THE SAID AMOUNT IS ALSO RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF CROSSED/CUT SEIZED FORM OF MR. SANCHIT BHATNAGAR FROM WHOM NO AMOUNT WHATSOEVER WAS RECEIVED AND AS SUCH NO ADDITION CAN BE SUSTAINED. HENCE THE ADDITION IS DELETED. IV) ADDITION OF ` `1 LAC IS ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT RECORDED FOR FLAT NO.PD/B-1001: THE ADDITIO N OF ` ` 1 LAC HAS SEEMINGLY BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS THAT I.T.A. NO.3627/DEL./2009 9 THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS LESSER THAN THE HIGHER AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE SEIZE D TWO FORMS AT ` ` 19 60 000/-. IN FACT THE APPELLANT HAS RECORDED A SUM OF ` ` 19 60 000/- IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH IS HIGHER AMOUNT OF THE TWO FORMS AND THEREFORE NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN AND TH E ADDITION OF `1 LAC HAVING WRONGLY BEEN MADE IS HERE BY DELETED. V) THE DIFFERENCE OF ` ` 50 000/- IN FLAT NO.FF/A-304: THE ADDITION IN THIS CASE ALSO SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE HIGHER AMOUNT AT ` `18 LACS IS ENTERED INTO BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS BO OKS OF ACCOUNT AGAINST THE AMOUNT OF ` `17 50 000/- RECORDED IN THE APPLICATION FORM. NO ADDITION ON T HAT BASIS CAN BE MADE AND HENCE THE ADDITION IS DELETED . II) ADDITION OF ` `9 00 000/- IN SHOP NO.G-14: THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ASSUMING THAT SALE OF SHOP NO.UG-1 4 WAS RECORDED AT ` `11 LACS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS AGAINST THE BASIC COST RECORDED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL AT ` `22 LACS AFTER DEDUCTING THERE FROM A SUM OF ` `2 LACS AS RECORDED AS RECEIVED IN THE SUM OF ` `10 LACS AS PER THE NOTINGS IN ANN.A- 18 PAGE 2. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND FOUND THAT THE RECORDING OF SALE OF THAT SHOP HAS ONLY BEEN MADE A FTER THE DATE OF SEARCH ON 6.4.2006 AND THE SHOP HAS BEEN DE CLARED AS UN-BOOKED STOCK IN THE STATEMENT OF ON MONEY PRE PARED AND SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. THE RECEIPT OF ` `2 LACS HAS BEEN RECORDED AS ON MONEY IN THE CALCULATIONS OF ON MONEY. ON THESE FACTS NO ADDITION OF ALLEGED DIFFERENCE OF ` `9 LACS CAN BE MADE AS IN FACT NO DIFFERENCE IN EXCESS OF ` ` 20 LACS AS OFFERED AS ON MONEY HAS ARISEN AFTER RECORDED SA LES THEREOF AT ` ` 2 LACS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HENCE THE ADDITION IS DELETED. VI) ADDITION OF ` 45 000/- ` ` 25 000/- ` ` 45 000/- AND ` ` 35 000/- HAVE BEEN MADE FOR FLAT NOS.PP/B-704 FOR COVERED CA R PARKING PP/B-804 TOWARDS OPEN CAR PARKING PP/A-40 1 BEING THE NEGATIVE DIFFERENCE IN WHICH CASE A SUM O F ` ` 14 75 000/- IS CHARGED AND DEBITED AS AGAINST THE RECORDED AMOUNT OF ` ` 14 30 000/- AS RECORDED IN THE SEIZED BOOKING FORM AND FLAT NO.PP/A-202 TOWARDS COST OF P ARKING RESPECTIVELY. THE DIFFERENCES ARE ON ACCOUNT OF CO ST OF PARKING AS PROVIDED IN THE RESPECTIVE APPLICATION F ORMS. THE BASIC FLAT COST WRITTEN IN THE SAID APPLICATION FOR MS HAS BEEN CHARGED FROM THE PARTIES CONCERNED. THE PARKING CO ST HAS I.T.A. NO.3627/DEL./2009 10 BEEN CHARGED AFTERWARDS AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE BOOKING FORMS BEING ONLY A MEMOIRE OF DEALINGS NO ADVERSE INFERENCE ON THE BASIS OF ONLY SAID FORMS IN THE A BSENCE OF CORRESPONDING RECEIPTS CAN BE MADE. THE AMOUNTS T OWARDS PARKING SPACE HAVE DULY BEEN RECEIVED AS ARE APPEAR ING IN THE RESPECTIVE COPIES OF ACCOUNTS OF THE DIFFERENT PURCHASERS AND THEREFORE THE ADDITIONS OF ` ` 45 000/- ` ` 25 000/- ` ` 35 000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE HEREBY DELETED. THE ADDITION OF ` `45 000/- WITH REFERENCE TO FLAT NO.PP/A-401 HAS WRONGLY BEEN MADE BY THE AO AS THE APPELLANT HAS ACCOUNTED FOR MORE SALE VALUE THAN TH E AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE FORM FOUND AND SEIZED. NO A DDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE ON THESE FACTS. HENCE THE ADDITION IS DELETED. .. VIII) ADDITION OF ` `45 000/- : THE ALLEGED DIFFERENCE IS ON ACCOUNT OF THE VALUE OF PARKING. I HAVE GONE THROU GH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND FOUND THAT THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE APPLICATION FORM HAS DULY BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE APPELLANT IN THE ACCOUNT OF TH E PURCHASER AND IN ADDITION TO THAT AMOUNT OF ` `45 000/- HAS ALSO BEEN DEBITED ON 20.12.2007 AND RECEIVED ON 25.12.2007 THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND HENCE THE ADDITION OF ` ` 45 000/- AS MADE IS HEREBY DELETED. IX) ADDITION OF ` `92 813/- WITH REFERENCE TO FLAT NO.PP/A- 704: THE FLAT WAS BOOKED IN THE NAME OF SH. HIMANSHU KUMAR SAXENA FOR A SUM OF ` `18 56 250/-. AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT NO SECOND FORM FOR A SU M OF ` ` 17 63 437/- AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FOUND AND SEIZED. THE AMOUNT OF ` `17 63 437/- WAS IN FACT RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE DA TE OF SEARCH ITSELF AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT @5% WAS OUTSTANDING AGAINST THE BOOKING PARTY AS ON THE DAT E OF SEARCH. THE TOTAL AMOUNT AS PER THE COPY OF ACCOUNT PLACED ON RECORD HAS BEEN RECEIVED TILL 5.4.2007. THE RECORDED AMOUNT BEING EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT RECORDED ON THE APPLICATION FORM NO ADDITIO N IS CALLED FOR AND HENCE THE ADDITION OF ` ` 92 813/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DELETED. 4. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. DR SUPPORTED T HE ORDER OF THE AO WHILE THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). I.T.A. NO.3627/DEL./2009 11 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE AFOR ESAID ADDITIONS AFTER VERIFYING THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE REVENUE HAVE NOT PLACED BEFORE US ANY MATERIAL CON TROVERTING THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE FACTS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) SO AS TO ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER. IN THE ABSENCE OF AN Y BASIS WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A).THERE FORE REVISED GROUND NOS.1 TO 11 IN THE APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 6. REVISED GROUND NO.12 IN THE APPEAL BEING GENERA L IN NATURE NOR ANY SUBMISSIONS HAVING BEEN MADE BEFORE US ON THIS GROU ND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION WHILE NO ADDITIONAL GROUND HA VING BEEN RAISED BEFORE US IN TERMS OF REVISED RESIDUARY GROUND NO.13 IN THE APPE AL ACCORDINGLY THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 7. NO OTHER SUBMISSION OR ARGUMENT WAS MADE BEFO RE US. 8. IN RESULT THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) A.N. PA HUJA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER NS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. M/S HRC ENGINEERS ESTATE P. LTD. 914 NEW DEL HI HOUSE BARAKHAMBA RD. NEW DELHI 2. ASSTT. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE MEERUT. 3. CIT (APPEALS) MEERUT. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR ITAT C BENCH NEW DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI