Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-3 v. Orchid Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd

$~7 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 161/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-3 .....Appellant Through:Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Advocate. Versus ORCHID INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through:None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRIO R D E R%28.03.2017 1.The question of law sought to be urged in this appeal by the Revenuein identical - both on law and on facts to the question of law urged in ITANo.175/2017, which was dismissed on 27.02.2017. 2.In ITA No.175/2017, the Court had observed as follows:- “The brief facts are that the assessee was subjected to searchproceedings on 26.02.2009 and received a notice under Section153A, to which it replied. For the concerned AY 2007-08, the AOadded back `3,42,79,320/- on account of valuation of closingstock. The AO observed that the valuation was of the aggregate,without excluding the area that fell to the share of thecollaborator. The CIT(A) endorsed the opinion of the AO andrejected the assessee’s appeal. The ITAT noticed the facts andruling of this Court in CIT v. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 andthereafter found as follows:proceedings on 26.02.2009 and received a notice under Section153A, to which it replied. For the concerned AY 2007-08, the AOadded back `3,42,79,320/- on account of valuation of closingstock. The AO observed that the valuation was of the aggregate,without excluding the area that fell to the share of thecollaborator. The CIT(A) endorsed the opinion of the AO andrejected the assessee’s appeal. The ITAT noticed the facts andruling of this Court in CIT v. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 andthereafter found as follows: ITA 161/2017 “7.In this case, return of income for the year underconsideration was filed on 06.11.2007 has attained finalityon passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) on 30.12.2008.As it is observed from the records placed before us thatthere has been no reference to any incriminating documentin respect of the addition made by the Assessing Officer.The Assessing Officer has completed the assessment andmadeadditionwithouttherebeinganyseizedmaterial/documents. 8.The Ld. DR could not controvert the submissionsmade by the Ld. AR that there was no incriminatingmaterial that was found or seized during the search andseizure proceedings. Hence, the additions made in theassessment order by the Assessing officer in admittedly notbased on any material found or seized during the course ofsearch. 9.We are, therefore, of the opinion that the case ofthe assessee is squarely covered by the decision of CIT v.Kabul Chawla (supra). For the reasons set out above, weuphold the legal issue raised by the assessee in the crossobjection and hold the impugned assessment as null andvoid.” In light of the findings of the ITAT which are consistentwith the ratio in Kabul Chawla (supra), no question of lawarises. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 3.For the above reasons, no question of law arises.The appeal isdismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. MARCH 28, 2017sbITA 161/2017 NAJMI WAZIRI, J.