Full Text
Translation output
$-46 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ITA884/2016,C.M.APPL.45457/2016
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX -9 Appellant
Through : Sh. Zoheb Hossain,' Sr. Standing Counsel with Sh. Akshay Saxena and Sh. Deepak
Anand,Advocates.
ITA884/2016,C.M.APPL.45457/2016
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX -9 Appellant
Through : Sh. Zoheb Hossain,' Sr. Standing Counsel with Sh. Akshay Saxena and Sh. Deepak
Anand,Advocates.
VERSUS
RAM KUMAR SHOKEEN Respondent
Through : Sh. Ved Jain and Sh.Pranjal Srivastava, Advocates.
Through : Sh. Ved Jain and Sh.Pranjal Srivastava, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
07.12.2016 In the present case, the Revenue claims to be aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) which directed deletion of sums sought to be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee on protective basis.
The facts necessary in this regard are that search and seizure proceedings were initiated and conducted in the premises ofone M/s.
Khinda- Group of Companies [hereafter "Khinda Group"] in the course of which, documents, books of accounts and,other materials were detained/taken into custody. Simultaneously,search proceedings took place in the premises of one ofthe Directors of Khinda Group from where as well documents were seized. On an appreciation, the revenue concluded that M/s.Vijeta Properties Pvt. Ltd.,the purchaser
2016:DHC:8403-DB paid amounts in excess ofthe declared value to the tune of^21 crores and brought it to tax both in the hands of the seller as well as the buyer. In addition, the assessee was also taxed on protective basis.
The CIT(A) and the ITAT both ruled that none of the materials belonged to the assessee so as tojustify him being taxed on protective basis. The Court is in entire agreement with the findings ofthe ITAT; it is also apparent that the materials on record,;i.e. those seized unequivocally point to the circumstances that the amounts were paid by the buyer. - ^
In the circumstances,in the absence ofany material connecting' the assessee, a Director or eyen a statement by him, the-findings of the Assessing Officer(AO)were notJustified. No substantial question oflaw arises;the appeal is,therefore,dismissed.
S.RAVINDRA BHAT,J NAJm WAZIRI,J DECEMBER 07,2016 ajk
2016:DHC:8403-DB
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
07.12.2016 In the present case, the Revenue claims to be aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) which directed deletion of sums sought to be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee on protective basis.
The facts necessary in this regard are that search and seizure proceedings were initiated and conducted in the premises ofone M/s.
Khinda- Group of Companies [hereafter "Khinda Group"] in the course of which, documents, books of accounts and,other materials were detained/taken into custody. Simultaneously,search proceedings took place in the premises of one ofthe Directors of Khinda Group from where as well documents were seized. On an appreciation, the revenue concluded that M/s.Vijeta Properties Pvt. Ltd.,the purchaser
2016:DHC:8403-DB paid amounts in excess ofthe declared value to the tune of^21 crores and brought it to tax both in the hands of the seller as well as the buyer. In addition, the assessee was also taxed on protective basis.
The CIT(A) and the ITAT both ruled that none of the materials belonged to the assessee so as tojustify him being taxed on protective basis. The Court is in entire agreement with the findings ofthe ITAT; it is also apparent that the materials on record,;i.e. those seized unequivocally point to the circumstances that the amounts were paid by the buyer. - ^
In the circumstances,in the absence ofany material connecting' the assessee, a Director or eyen a statement by him, the-findings of the Assessing Officer(AO)were notJustified. No substantial question oflaw arises;the appeal is,therefore,dismissed.
S.RAVINDRA BHAT,J NAJm WAZIRI,J DECEMBER 07,2016 ajk
2016:DHC:8403-DB
JUDGMENT