Ita/992/2015 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central-2) v. Lalit Modi

$-9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 992/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-2).. Appellant Through: Sh. Dileep Shivpuri, Sr. StandingCounsel along with Sh. Sanjay Kumar,Standing Counsel.versus LALIT MODIRespondentThrough: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate alongwith Mrs. Kavita Jha, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI ORDER16.08.2016 % The revenue claims to be aggrieved by an order of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) of 29.05.2015 in ITA 329/Del/2014.The brief facts of the case are that a survey was carried out in thepremises of the assessee; during the course of the assessment threeadditions were made against which the assessee felt aggrieved andcarried it in appeal. The CIT(A) allowed that appeal. The revenue'sappeal to the ITAT has been dismissed by the impugned order. Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, learned counsel for the appellant urges thatthree questions of law arise pertaining to the selection/deletion of theamounts which were originally included in the assessment. The firstpertains to deletion of the addition made to the tune of Rs. 65,70,747/-. It is urged that the consideration of the document seized in the courseof the sui-vey i.e. dated 18.06.2009, on a plain reading would reveal thatin fact the amounts were shown to have been received and therefore theassessee was liable "to pay" tax on it. It is also submitted that given thenature of the assessee's business, the inferences drawn by the AO werenot only justified but sound. We notice that the CIT appeals as well asthe ITAT appeal were unpersuaded by the revenue's statements. Theassessee had contended that the document was of no value and was infact the proposals and deals which could not mature and thus could notbe the basis of the AO's decision. As noticed earlier, apart from theinterpretation preferred in the course of the appeal, there is no othermaterial to substantiate the revenue's contention. The interpretationaccepted by the concurring judicial opinion in this court's view, cannotbe considered palpably unreasonable as to result in a substantialquestion of law pertaining to a perversity in the findings. No questionof law - at least as sought to be urged at this point arises. Second ground on which the revenue claims to be aggrieved isthe deletion of Rs. 40 lacs. The assessee had, in the first instance,,recorded the statement under Section 132 (4). In his statement, he hadamongst others indicated that the jewellery which was in his possessionand/of that belonging to his family had been sold. The-AO was of theopinion that this was duly recorded in the returns and sought to bring itto taxation. The CIT and therefore the ITAT noticed that the assessee hadsubsequently given an explanation on 10.08.2009 and furthermoresignificantly surrendered Rs. 65 crores which was accepted by the AO. Having regard to these factual findings, the Court is of the opinion thatno substantial question of law arises in this Court. As far as the last deletion i.e. in respect of the amount to tax on an application on Section 14 A is concerned, we are satisfied thatthe findings are entirely factual and do not call for any interference. There is no merit in the appeal and it is therefore dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J AUGUST 16, 2016sapna NAJMI WAZIRI, J