Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Sai Samarpan Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 2710/Del/2023
Date of Judgement/Order : 04/03/2024
Related Assessment Year : 2019-20
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Sai Samarpan Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

The case of Sai Samarpan Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT revolves around the initiation of proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequent additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 56 of the Act. The appeals were filed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dated 28.08.2023.

The primary contention raised by the assessee in ITA No. 2710/Del/2023 was that the proceedings under section 153C should not have been initiated. They argued that the initiation lacked the necessary satisfaction recorded by the AO of the searched person, and the proceedings were conducted without providing the assessee with a copy of the recorded satisfaction. Furthermore, they contended that there was no evidence linking the seized materials to the assessee.

The second major issue concerned the addition of Rs. 25,00,000 and Rs. 19,00,000 under section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had made these additions based on payments received by the assessee, which were allegedly advances in respect of an immovable property transaction. The CIT(A) affirmed the AO’s order, prompting the assessee to file appeals before the Tribunal.

During the proceedings, it was revealed that the property in question was jointly owned by Mr. Narender Kapoor and Mr. Aseem Doomra, with the assessee company acting as a facilitator in the sale transaction. The Tribunal noted that the agreement to sell and purchase clearly indicated that the assessee was acting on behalf of Kapoor and Doomra. Additionally, it was found that the money received by the assessee from M/s Kritunairu Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. actually belonged to Kapoor and Doomra, not the assessee. The Tribunal also considered an affidavit submitted by the assessee stating that the received payment was handed over to Doomra.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031