Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central)-3 v. M/S Intime Promoters Pvt. Ltd

Signature Not Verified $~38 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 107/2020 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL)-3, ..... AppellantThrough:Ms.VibhootiMalhotra,SeniorStanding Counsel with Mr. ShailenderSingh, Advocate. versus M/S INTIME PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through:None. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULAO R D E R%18.02.2020 CM APPL. 6383/2020 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. ITA 107/2020 & CM APPL. 6384/2020 (delay) 3. There is delay of 150 days in filing the appeal. 4. We have heard learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue on merits.Since we are not inclined to interfere in the present appeal, we do not deemit appropriate to pass any order on the application seeking condonation ofdelay. 5. The revenue is in appeal against the order dated 29.03.2019 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi-C Bench, New Delhi , dismissing theappeal preferred by the revenue in ITA No. 3157/DEL/2014 relating toAssessment Year (AY) 2005-06. By the impugned order, the Tribunal hasaccepted the appeal of the respondent-Assessee and rejected the appealpreferred by the revenue. 6. The assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.6,00,720/-. The same was processed under Section 143(1) and the case wasselected for scrutiny. Notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 11.10.2006and a questionnaire was issued to the assessee. During the course ofassessment proceedings, a survey operation was conducted on 20.02.2007on Taneja Developer and Infrastructure Ltd. During the said survey, certaindocuments were seized. It appears that three loose sheets were recoveredduring the said survey which belonged to the assessee. The said sheetscontained particulars “broker-wise due as on 12.01.2005”. The said sheetscontained the tabulation, giving the name of the broker and against the nameof the broker the amount was indicated. The Assessing Officer (AO)computed the same at Rs.1,46,55,94,222/-. The AO held that the assesseehad not reflected the said amount, as received, in its books of account andconsequently, proceeded to add the said amount as the income of theassessee for the AY 2005-06. The plea of the assessee that the said amounthad not been received in the AY 2005-06 and that the same was recoverableinsubsequentyears,andasamatteroffact,anamountofRs.1,42,48,36,949/- was indeed recovered in the subsequent financial yearswas not appreciated by the AO. The assessee then preferred the appeal Signature Not Verified before the CIT (A) who called for a remand report and accepted the appealpreferred by the respondent-Assessee. The Tribunal, as aforesaid hasrejected the appeal preferred by the revenue. 7. Ms. Malhotra, senior standing counsel submits that the respondent-Assessee does not dispute that the loose sheets recovered during surveyoperations from Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. indeed belong tothe assessee. She submits that the broker wise dues reflected in the saidloose sheets was the income of the assessee during the assessment year inquestion. Signature Not Verified before the CIT (A) who called for a remand report and accepted the appealpreferred by the respondent-Assessee. The Tribunal, as aforesaid hasrejected the appeal preferred by the revenue. 7. Ms. Malhotra, senior standing counsel submits that the respondent-Assessee does not dispute that the loose sheets recovered during surveyoperations from Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. indeed belong tothe assessee. She submits that the broker wise dues reflected in the saidloose sheets was the income of the assessee during the assessment year inquestion. 8. Having heard Ms. Malhotra and perused the entire record, including theassessment order, the order passed by the CIT (A) and ITAT, we do not findany reason to interfere in the impugned order. The documents recoveredduring the survey operation have to be read as they exist and nothing can beadded to them. The said documents disclose what they state. The saiddocuments reflect “broker-wise due as on 12.01.2005”. This clearly meansthat the tabulation reflected the amount recoverable by the assessee from thenamed brokers, as on 12.01.2005, and it did not reflect the amount actuallyreceived or accrued. The assessee, admittedly, is a real estate developer andits explanation that it had received booking amount of Rs.17 crores, whichwas reflected in the book of accounts to the AY 2005-06, and that in respectof the said bookings, further amounts were to be received in subsequentyears was completely a plausible explanation. Indeed, the assessee disclosedin its books of accounts further receipt of Rs.1,34,59,86,447/- in thesubsequent years, and the assessee also reflected the balance amount due asRs.7,88,50,502/-. Signature Not Verified 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the AO was notjustified in making addition of Rs.1,46,55,94,922/- on account of sales. 10. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. VIPIN SANGHI, J SANJEEV NARULA, J FEBRUARY 18, 2020v