Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, New Central Revenue Building ,Statue Circle , Jaipur (Raj v. M/S Okay Plus Land Developers (P) Ltd,., B-49 , Kesahv Path,Suraj Nagar West, Civil Lines , Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 150 / 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax-1, New Central Revenue Building ,Statue Circle , Jaipur (Raj) ----Appellant Versus M/s Okay Plus Land Developers (P) Ltd,., B-49 , Kesahv Path,Suraj Nagar West, Civil Lines , Jaipur ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 151 / 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj) ----Appellant Versus M/s Okay Plus Land Developers (P) Ltd., B-49, Keshav Path, Suraj Nagar West, Civil Lines, Jaipur ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Gupta _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 24/07/2017 In both these appeals, common questions of law and factsare involved, hence, they are decided by this common judgment. 1.By way of these appeals, the appellant has assailed thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals of the department. 2.This Court while admitting the matter framed the following questions of law:- In DBITA No. 150/2009 i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in deleting theaddition of Rs. 40,00,000/- made under Section69B on account of undisclosed investment, whichwas based on statements of sellers andconsideration of bank transactions? ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deletingthe addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- without evengiving any finding on the same and also noconsidering the fact that the purchase of the landunder question was made by Shri Narayan DassMukhija for Rs. 1,65,00,000/- and the assesseehas shown the purchase of the said land fromhim at Rs. 1,25,00,000/-? iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deletingthe addition of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- made underSection 69B, ignoring the fact that the same wasmade after considering the statements of sellersand witnesses, considering the bank transactionsand considering the surrounding circumstances,which revealed that the assessee has not dulydisclosed the assets in its books of accounts?” In DBITA No. 151/2009 i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in deleting theaddition of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- made underSection 69B on account of undisclosedinvestment which was based on statements ofsellers and witnesses and consideration of banktransactions? ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deletingthe addition of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- made by theAssessing Officer by estimating the purchaseconsideration at Rs. 2,80,00,000/- withoutconsidering the fact that the purchase of the landunder question was made by Shri Narayan DasMukhija for Rs. 1,65,00,000/- and the assesseehas shown the purchases of the said land fromhim at 1,25,00,000/-? iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deletingthe addition of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- made underSection 69B, ignoring the fact that the same wasmade after considering the statements of sellersand witnesses, considering the bank transactionsand considering the surrounding circumstances,which revealed that the assessee has not dulydisclosed the assets in its books of accounts?” ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deletingthe addition of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- made by theAssessing Officer by estimating the purchaseconsideration at Rs. 2,80,00,000/- withoutconsidering the fact that the purchase of the landunder question was made by Shri Narayan DasMukhija for Rs. 1,65,00,000/- and the assesseehas shown the purchases of the said land fromhim at 1,25,00,000/-? iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deletingthe addition of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- made underSection 69B, ignoring the fact that the same wasmade after considering the statements of sellersand witnesses, considering the bank transactionsand considering the surrounding circumstances,which revealed that the assessee has not dulydisclosed the assets in its books of accounts?” 3.Counsel for the appellant Mr. Singhi has produced certaindocuments on record where it has come on record that originallythe land was entered by two agreements for further considerationto one M/s Navchitra Distributors (Multiplex) Private Limited. Wehave also perused the power of attorney which is on record andMr. Singhi has also taken us to the Will made in favour of thirdparty and ultimately also the power of attorney ultimately madeon 24[th] March, 2005, by which the property has been disposed of.However, from the statement of three land owners, it has come onrecord that original transaction was for Rs. 1, 65,00,000/- whichconfirms the documents entered into between the power ofattorney holder and the assessee to the tune of Rs. 1,65,00,000/-.He has also contended that over and above the Khatedar bankaccount was also there. 4.We have heard counsel for both the sides. 5.In para 9 over and above the documents which are sought tobe relied upon after considering the registered sale deed of all theKhatedars the Tribunal has held as under:- “Thus, considering the fact that the assessee-company did not exist at the point of time whenthe alleged unaccounted payments if any weremade and further considering the fact that the AO had no material with him to estimate the salesprice at Rs. 10,00,000/- per bigha coupled withthe fact that the property under transfer wasunder a serious threat of acquisition whichultimately turned right by the developmentauthority having refused to allow the conversion ofland for the desired purposes, in our opinion, theentire additions deserve to be deleted.” 6. In that view of the matter, all the issues are answered in favour of the assessee against the department. 7.The appeals stand dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH)J. (K.S.JHAVERI)J. A.Sharma/127-128