Full Text
Through; Mr.Rahul Chaudhary.Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr.Raghvendra Kishore Singh and
Mr.Anup Kumar Kesari,Advocates.
Through: Mr.Salil Aggarwal and Mr.RaviPratap, Advocates. p
Through:Mr.Rahul Chaudhary.Sr.Standing
Through: Mr.Salil Aggarwal and Mr.RaviPratap, AND
ITANo.491/2016
Through:Mr.Rahul Chaudhary. Sr. Standing
2016:DHC:8504-DB
Through: Mr.Salil Aggarwal and Mr.Ravi Pratap, CORAM:
JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI
01.08.2016 CM No.25521/2016(Exemption!in ITA 406/2016
CM No.27292/2016(Exemption)in ITA 491/2016
ORDER
1. Allowed subjectto alljust exceptions. CM No.27293/2016(Condonation ofdelay in re-filing)in ITA 491/2016
2. For the reasons stated in the application,the delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
3. The application is allowed. ITA Nos.406/2016.407/2016 & 491/2016
4. These three appeals by the Revenue are directed against the common order dated 30'^ October,2015 passed bytheIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (TTAT')in ITA No.2714/Del/2010 for the Assessment Year('AY')2002- 03,ITA No.362/Del/20Il for the AY 2004-05 and ITA No. 1305/Del/2011 for the AY 2006-07.
5. A common urged in ITA Nos. 406 and 407 of 2016 concerning AYs 2002-03 and 2004-05 is whether the ITAT erred in law in holding that the Assessing Officer('AO')was notjustified in framing the assessment under ITA 406/2016,407/2016 &491/2016 Page2of[5] Section 153A read with Section 143(3) ofthe Ineome Tax Aet, 1961 since no ineriminating material qua the Assessee was found during the eourse of the seareh?
6. The above issue stands covered in favour ofthe Assessee by the decision ofthis Courtin CITv.Kabul Chawla(2015)380ITR 573.
7. ITA No.491 of2016 is for AY 2006-07 which is the year ofthe search which took place at the premises of M/s Haryana Chains, a unit of the Assessee. A doeument(Annexure-17)seized during the seareh contained an entry which read as '9750.140' which was interpreted by the Assessing Offieer(AO)as representing the trading income ofM/s Haryana Chains and added to the returned ineome ofthe Assessee.
8. The Commissioner ofIneome Tax (Appeals)['CIT(A'] disagreed with the AO and deleted the addition after agreeing with the Assessee that the above figure represented the total weight ofthe gold chains found atthe time ofthe seareh. The valuation report prepared by the Department supported the case of the Assessee. The CIT(A)further noted that the Assessee had surrendered a part ofthe stoek ofM/s Haryana Chains. The AO had reduced the said surrendered amount from the total addition made on the basis ofthe seized doeuments. Thus, the AO had aeeepted the faet that M/s Haryana Chains was a unit of the Assessee. The above faetual determination has been eoneurred with by the ITAT in theimpugned order.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not persuaded that the order ofthe CIT(A), whieh has been eoneurred with by ITA 406/2016,407/2016 &491/2016 Page[3] ofS for consideration.
10. The other question sought to be urged for the AY 2006-07 by the Revenue concerns the deletion of Rs. 15,22,096/- made by the AO on accountofvaluation ofsilver items determined by the Department Valuation Officer('DVO'). The fact was that the DVO had valued the silver utensils articles atRs.68,08,000/-,which was valued by the registered valuer ofthe ofthe Assessee at Rs. 52,85,904/-. The CIT(A)deleted the addition ofRs. 52,85,904/- out of the above Rs. 68,08,000/- and added the remaining amount ofRs. 15,22,096/-. The Assessee questioned the above order ofthe CIT(A)essentially on the basis that the DVO had valued the silver utensils on the basis of its purity at 80%, whereas the declared purity was 60% purity. TheITAT pointed outthat neitherthe AO northe CIT(A)gave any reasonsfor preferringthe valuation reportoftheDVO overthatfurnished by the Assessee.
11. There appears to be no basis for disagreeing the Assessee's assertion thatthe declared silver was only 60% pure. It cannot be said thattheITAT while accepting the above plea of the assessee has rendered a perverse finding. No substantial question oflaw arisesfor consideration.
12. As regards the further point regarding deletion ofthe addition ofRs.[4] crores made by the AO towards unexplained cash deposit in the bank,the ITAT has found that the assessee had explained the deposit ofthe amount. The ITAT concurred with the CIT(A)and concluded that the said addition should be deleted. Thus, being a purely fact of determination, again no ITA406/2016,407/2016 &491/2016 Page4of[5] question oflaw arises for consideration.
13. The appeals are,accordingly,dismissed.
AUGUST 01,2016 kk S.MURALIDHAR,J NA^IWAZIRI,J