IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ NEW DELHI)

BEFORE YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5535/DEL/2024 (A.Y 2010-11)

DCIT Circle 10(1) New Delhi		Vs M/s HB Estate Developers Limited H-72, Connaught Circus, New Delhi PAN: AAACH3122M
Appellant		Respondent

C.O. NO. 52/Del/2025 in ITA No. 5535/DEL/2024 (A.Y 2010-11)

ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

The present appeal is filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 26/09/2024 for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 3,68,25,018/-, thereafter assessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) on 25/03/2013 at an income of Rs. 9,76,94,690/-. The case of the Assessee was re-opened and a notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued. An assessment order came to be passed u/s 147 r.w. Section 143(3) of the Act on 29/12/2017 by making an addition of Rs. 2,81,87,500/- u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29/12/2017, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 26/09/2024, deleted the addition of Rs. 2,81,87,500/- made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the Act. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 26/09/2024, the Revenue preferred the captioned Appeal and the Assessee has also field Cross Appeal impugning the order of the Ld.

CIT(A).

3. The solitary issue involved in the present Appeal of the Revenue is regarding deletion of addition of Rs. 2,81,87,500/-. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in deleting the addition despite the fact that the addition was made based on the specific information regarding receipt of the amount through the Companies managed and controlled by entry operators, though the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness were remained unexplained. The Ld. Departmental Representative further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) committed error while deleting the addition observing that A.O. needs to rejected the books of account before making the addition. The Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the order of the A.O. sought for allowing the Appeal.

4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the A.O. made the addition based on specific information that the Assessee received the amount through the Companies managed and operated by entry operators and in the absence of the source of the credit remained unexplained the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. The Ld. Department's Representative relying on the assessment order, sought for allowing the Appeal of the Revenue.

5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition in following manners:- “7.2. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submission of the appellant and evidences on record. The appellant in the earlier year, booked property viz 5 units measuring 2000 sq. ft each in IT Park Gurgaon, Parsvnath Developers Ltd. and the booking amount / registration amount paid was Rs.24,37,500. During the year under consideration, the company sold the booking rights of these properties to Signature Max Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. for consideration of Rs.2,81,87,500. The entire amount of Rs. 2,81,87,500 is duly reflected as sales in the financial statements and ITR of the company and that the resultant profit of Rs.2,57,50,000 has been duly offered for tax. It is a case of sale of stock-in-trade by the appellant company. The appellant has not received any share application money share capital / share premium / loans / gifts or any other form of tax free receipts from Signature Max Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., which was not shown as income. The amount of Rs.2,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document