COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. DEVI DAS GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 15512/2010 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. ITA 1302/2010 1. The present appeal by the Income Tax Department has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for brevity "Act, 1961") challenging the order dated 14th October, 2009 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") in ITSSA No. 4/Agr/2008 for the Block Assessment Period 1st April, 1996 to 10th December, 2002.

(2.) The relevant facts of the present case are that a search and seizure under Section 132(1) of Act, 1961 was carried out at the residential premises of the respondent-assessee at 1893, Dampier Nagar, Mathura and D-1/2, Model Town, Phase-III, Delhi and a seizure of Rs. 12,99,000/- was made from the Delhi premises. Respondent-assessee in reply to the notice u/s. 143(2) stated that the said cash was the share application money which belonged to M/s. West Deal properties Pvt. Ltd. of which he was the director on the day of search. AO did not accept the explanation given by the respondent-assessee and made an addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- on account of undisclosed income in the assessment order for the Block period. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short "CIT(A)"] allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee and deleted the said addition made by the AO. Revenue preferred an appeal against CIT(A) which was dismissed by the Tribunal. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that Tribunal had erred in law in upholding the CIT(A)'s order of deletion of addition made by the AO ignoring the fact that M/s. Raj Kattha Products Pvt. Ltd. who claims to have given share application money of Rs. 13,00,000/- was one of the main companies of the Raj Darbar Group, to which the respondent-assessee belongs and the respondent-assessee was the Director of the company, that is, M/s. West Deal Properties Pvt. Ltd. whose shares were claimed to have been purchased at the time of the search. He submitted that the cash entry dated 23rd November, 2009 of the cash transition is only accommodative in nature to explain the availability of cash found at the time of search.