Delhi High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S Stc Developer Pvt. Ltd. on 15 December, 2021
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 15.12.2021
+ ITA 174/2021 & CM 45209/2021
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(CENTRAL)-3 ..... Appellant
Through Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, Adv.
Versus
M/S STC DEVELOPER PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Ved Jain, Ms.Richa, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
MANMOHAN, J. (Oral)
CM 45209/2021 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
ITA 174/2021
1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order of the ITAT
dated 28th February, 2020 passed in ITA 2738/DEL/2016.
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that the ITAT has not
recorded any independent reasoning to deviate from the findings
recorded in the assessment order that the Respondent had failed to
discharge its onus to prove the genuineness of the sale transaction with
regard to the shop in the Cross River Mall.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that the impugned
order is erroneous as it fails to appreciate that the seized material
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
Signing Date:17.12.2021
11:53:20
indicated that certain portion of the transaction was conducted 'out of
book' as the total consideration recorded is at Rs.14,62,91,143/-. She
further states that the amount payable by cheque recorded in the seized
material bears complete resemblance to the cheque amount actually
received by the Respondent and the particulars of the cheque numbers
also match. She also states that the square footage of the shop between
the seized document and the actual shop sold by the respondent also
match.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant further states that the ITAT
has grossly erred in relying on the decision of this Court in the case of
Pr. CIT (Central -2) v. Vinita Chaurasia ITA 1104/2015 without
appreciating the distinction on facts. She emphasis that this Court in
Vinita Chaurasia (supra) had deleted the additions on account of
Revenue's failure to satisfy the jurisdictional benchmark of 'belong to'
under Section 153C of the Act. However, she states that the Tribunal
failed to appreciate that in the present case, the assessing officer
having jurisdiction over the respondent had duly recorded his
satisfaction that the seized material belonged to the respondent.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds
that the name of the assessee nowhere appears in the computer
generated loose sheets found from the residence of Mr.Lalit Modi, the
alleged broker.
6. ITAT in its impugned order has concluded that there was no
corroborative evidence or statement to prove that the payment had
been received by the assessee other than cheque amount as entered in
the sale agreement. The Tribunal had observed that on the bare
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
Signing Date:17.12.2021
11:53:20
perusal of the seized document it cannot be inferred or concluded that
seized document belongs to or has any nexus with the assessee.
7. In our opinion, the Tribunal/ITAT has given cogent reasons for
arriving at its decision.
8. This Court also finds that in the case of Vinita Chaurasia
(supra), who had purchased a number of properties from the assessee,
this Court had dismissed a similar appeal filed by the Revenue being
ITA No.1104/2020. Further, the Division Bench in the said case had
not only dismissed the appeal on the ground of jurisdiction but also on
merits.
9. A Special Leave Petition filed against the said judgment has also
been dismissed by the Supreme Court.
10. Consequently, this Court is of the view that no substantial
question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
DECEMBER 15, 2021
RN
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
Signing Date:17.12.2021
11:53:20
