Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decision delivered on: 03.11.2023
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10, DELHI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, Sr Standing Counsel with Ms Easha Kadian and
Ms Hemlata Rawat, Standing Counsel.
Through: None
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM No.53743/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 39 days in filing the appeal]
2. This is an application filed by the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 39 days in filing the appeal.
4. For the reasons given in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
5. The application is disposed of.
6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.
7. Via the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”].
8. The controversy that arises in the present appeal is whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] with regard to the purported cash paid by the respondent/assessee for purchasing 50% of the 10% share held by deceased Kulbir Singh, partner in a firm going by the name Punihani International, can be sustained?
9. It is not in dispute that the respondent/assessee, along with deceased Kulbir Singh, Narinder Singh Punihani and Amarjeet Singh Punihani were the partners in Punihani International.
10. According to the respondent/revenue, Tarlok Singh, i.e., the respondent/assessee, purchased 50% of the 10% share in the immovable property described as F-5, Radhey Mohan Drive, Bandh Road, Gadaipur, Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030 [in short, “the subject property”].
11. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal shows that it proceeded to reverse the order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on several grounds, both legal and factual. Concededly the addition was made based on two documents which were recovered in a search action carried out at the premises of the aforementioned partnership firm, i.e., Punihani International.
12. The Tribunal appears to have taken the view that the documents found at the business premises could not have been used against the respondent/assessee, i.e., the partner. In other words, the Tribunal stated that the incriminating document which constituted a receipt in full discharge of the claim qua the subject property and the receipt for payment qua the very same property could not have been used against the respondent/assessee, i.e., the partner.
13. The reference to the documents is made in paragraph 5 and 6 of the impugned order. The record also shows that according to the appellant/revenue, cash amounting to Rs.6.50 crores was paid by the respondent/assessee, i.e., Tarlok Singh and Mr Narinder Singh Punihani paid Rs.6.25 crores. The total consideration paid by the respondent /assessee, i.e., Tarlok Singh was Rs.[8] crores and as noticed above, Rs.6.50 crores, according to the AO was paid in cash while the balance amount, i.e., Rs.1.50 crores, was paid by way of cheque(s).
14. The document based on which the addition was made by the AO is extracted in paragraph 12 of the impugned order. For the convenience, the same is extracted hereafter: