VATIKA LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee is aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter referred to as "the Tribunal) dated 8.3.2013 in IT(SS) A No. 117/Del/2006. It urges the following substantial questions of law: -

(2.) THE facts are that the search and seizure operations were conducted in the assessee's premises on 8.5.2013. Notice was thereafter issued as to why block assessment should not be completed in respect of AY 1998 -99 to AY 2004 -05. The assessee filed the NIL assessment. On 31.5.2005, the AO framed the assessment bringing to tax the sum of Rs. 45,89,68,630/ -. The AO, inter alia, held that the true value of the consideration received by the assessee towards the transactions entered into with the flat buyers has not been disclosed. These findings were sustained, inter alia, on the basis of a reworking of the consideration said to have been received. The AO took into account the materials secured and placed on record in the course of the search and seizure operations under Section 132 and also the statements made by the individuals.

(3.) IT is argued on behalf of the assessee that the order of the Tribunal affirming the sum of Rs. 1,35,00,000/ - is manifestly erroneous. To say so, learned senior counsel relied upon pages 484 and 483 of the paper book which is a part of Annexure A -1/60. It was submitted that the said amount represented the difference between the estimated value of the area booked by some individuals, i.e., Bhatias in Vatika Triangle, one of assessee's projects and the value of the area in another project, i.e., Vatika World. This difference was Rs. 17,93,217/ -. It is evident consequently that the documents could be easily explained as determinative of the difference but not the value of the concealed or undeclared income as has been erroneously assumed by the concerned authorities, i.e., CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT. Counsel also submitted that sum of Rs. 49,64,904/ - was wrongly added. In this regard, he relied upon two sheets of paper which were taken into consideration by all the authorities (including the ITAT which has reproduced the scanned copies of those documents). It is submitted that this was in respect of the inclusion of an area of 1805.42 sq. ft. which was seized from one Mrinal Nag and not seized from the assessee. The statement of the individual, without any material to show what the amount represented, was attributed as the assessee's income. Such addition could not, therefore, have been made in the subject assessment, since it had nothing to do with the assessee at all.