Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj v. M/S Countrywide Buildestate Pvt. Ltd. B

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 256/ 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax Central, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus M/s Countrywide Buildestate Pvt. Ltd. B-304, Janta Colony, Jaipur. ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sameer Sharma for Mr. Anil MehtaFor Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGHOrder 18/07/2017 1.By way of this appeal, the appellant department has assailed thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal hasdismissed the appeal of the department as well as cross objection ofthe assessee. 2.While admitting the appeal, following substantial questions oflaw has been framed : "Whether the Tribunal as well as CIT (A) were justifiedin deleting the addition of Rs.2,00,19,492/- made bythe Assessing Officer under Section 69B of the Act,which provides for addition in case of incompletedisclosure of investment in books of accounts, when itwas found that purchase cost of land at BhavgarhBanda was Rs.3.3 crores against which onlyRs.1,29,80,508/- was disclosed by the assessee in thebalance sheet?”in deleting the addition of Rs.2,00,19,492/- made bythe Assessing Officer under Section 69B of the Act,which provides for addition in case of incompletedisclosure of investment in books of accounts, when itwas found that purchase cost of land at BhavgarhBanda was Rs.3.3 crores against which onlyRs.1,29,80,508/- was disclosed by the assessee in thebalance sheet?” 3.In our considered opinion, the Tribunal while considering thecase has observed as under:-case has observed as under:- “We have already decided similar case in case of M/s.Rising Buildstate Pvt. Ltd. In ITA No.962/JP/2011 byorder dated 22.6.2012 in which the identical facts areinvolved. The addition was made on the basis ofcolumn no.4 of page 37 of Annexure A-57. Theaddition was deleted by Ld. CIT(A) and the order ofLd. CIT(A) has been confirmed by us. Since the factsare identical in the present case, therefore, in view ofthe above facts and circumstances discussed aboveand in view of the reasoning given by us in that casei.e. M/s. Rising Buildestate Pvt. Ltd., we confirm theorder of Ltd. CIT(A) in this case also.Rising Buildstate Pvt. Ltd. In ITA No.962/JP/2011 byorder dated 22.6.2012 in which the identical facts areinvolved. The addition was made on the basis ofcolumn no.4 of page 37 of Annexure A-57. Theaddition was deleted by Ld. CIT(A) and the order ofLd. CIT(A) has been confirmed by us. Since the factsare identical in the present case, therefore, in view ofthe above facts and circumstances discussed aboveand in view of the reasoning given by us in that casei.e. M/s. Rising Buildestate Pvt. Ltd., we confirm theorder of Ltd. CIT(A) in this case also. The cross objection filed by the assessee in support ofthe order of Ld. CIT(A) which does not require anyseparate adjudication upon, therefore, the same istreated as infructuous in nature.”the order of Ld. CIT(A) which does not require anyseparate adjudication upon, therefore, the same istreated as infructuous in nature.” 4.We are in complete agreement with the view taken by thelearned Tribunal. The issue is answered in favour of the assesseeand against the department. 5.The appeal stands dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J.