Law: Income Tax Act, 1961

Section: 132(4),133A(3)(iii)

JUDGMENT S. Ravindra Bhat, J. - Since 23.01.2015 was declared holiday, this matter is being taken up today, i.e., 27.01.2015. 2. The assessee in this appeal under Section 260A urges that the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter referred to as ITAT) requires interference. It is aggrieved by an order of the ITAT dated 12.06.2014 in ITA Nos.4922/del/2011 and 4257/Del/2011. The question of law sought to be urged is whether, in the circumstances, the addition of Rs.63,33,260/- is legally sustainable. 3. The assessee engaged itself in real estate and constructions activities. It was subjected to survey operation under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act. During the course of survey, the statement of one of its Directors was recorded, wherein he disclosed that a sum of Rs.15,00,55,000/- is an additional income outside the regular books of account and furnished details in this regard. These amounts were split into three parts and have been reflected in a tabular statement in paragraph 6 of the impugned order. The assessee had not disclosed this income in its returns, but declared it at the time of survey. It was asked to show cause why the said unaccounted amount, disclosed by Mr. Goyal on its behalf, should not be added back to the total income. The assessee alleged that the surrendered amounts were not voluntary and bona fide and the same was obtained in illegal and arbitrary manner, and in the absence of any evidence or material in relation to the surrender, the surrender made during the course of survey was also retracted. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the explanation and added back the amounts. The CIT (A) gave partial relief by taking into account the debit entries from the gross receipts, thus reducing the total taxable income. 4. The assessee appealed; the Revenue too cross appealed. The assessee's appeals were rejected. In support of its appeal, reliance was placed upon three decisions of this Court in CIT v. Anil Bhalla [2010] 322 ITR 191 (Delhi), CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works [2010] 328 ITR 384/[2011] 196 Taxman 488/9 taxmann com 83 (Delhi) and CIT v. Akme Projects Ltd. [2013] 217 Taxman 74 (Mag.)/35 taxmann.com 605 (Delhi).…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492