Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Jaipur v. Pinkcity Builders / Vijay Kanwar Lodha (Deceased) / Ummaid Singh Lodha / Neelam Lodha
[Citation -2017-LL-0718-37]

Citation 2017-LL-0718-37
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Jaipur
Respondent Name Pinkcity Builders / Vijay Kanwar Lodha (Deceased) / Ummaid Singh Lodha / Neelam Lodha
Court HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 18/07/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags investment in construction • undisclosed investment • block assessment • market price • block period • advance
Bot Summary: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the entire addition of Rs.25,91,306/- made on account of undisclosed investment of the assessee in plot located at Shyam Nagar, Jaipur by ignoring the deposition of the property dealer 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.40,41,131/- made on account of undisclosed investment in land at Nityanand Nagar, Queens Road, Jaipur 3.2 Appeal No.144/2011 admitted on 4.10.2012 Whether on the facts circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the entire addition of Rs.25,91,306/- made on account of undisclosed investment of the assessee in plot located at Shyam Nagar, Jaipur by ignoring the deposition of the property dealer ITA-279/2009 4. Admittedly, no document was found or noticed during the course of search for any investment by the assessee firm hence, simply on the basis that the initial investments and some construction of skeleton house were made by the assessee firm, such huge unjustified addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee. So far as investment in construction in the house on the plot by the assessee is concerned, it was submitted that investment was appearing in its books of accounts. The ground no.1 of the appeal preferred by the revenue is thus rejected and that of the assessee is allowed. AR at the outset of hearing has pointed out that the assessee firm had advanced Rs.1,50,000/- for the plot but it was pruchased by M/s Lodha Builders. For the present case, the addition of the amount was rightly deleted from the account of the assessee.


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 279 / 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus 1. M/s Pinkcity Builders, H-56, Hawa Sarak, Civil Lines, Jaipur Through Partners:- 2. Smt. Vijay Kanwar Lodha (Deceased) 3. Shri Ummaid Singh Lodha S/o Late Shri B.N. Lodha, R/o- A- 110, Atrey Path, Shyam Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. 4. Smt. Neelam Lodha W/o Shri Ranveer Singh Lodha, R/o -75, Gaurav Nagar, Civil Lines, Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 144 / 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus 1. M/s Pinkcity Builders, H-56, Hawa Sarak, Civil Lines, Jaipur Through Partners:- 2. Smt. Vijay Kanwar Lodha (Deceased) 3. Shri Ummaid Singh Lodha S/o Late Shri B.N. Lodha, R/o- A- 110, Atrey Path, Shyam Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. 4. Smt. Neelam Lodha W/o Shri Ranveer Singh Lodha, R/o - 75, Gaurav Nagar, Civil Lines, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. Aditya Vijay For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH (2 of 5) [ ITA-279/2009] Judgment 18/07/2017 1. In both these appeals common question of law and facts are involved, they are decided by this common judgment. 2. By way of these appeals, appellant has assailed judgment and order of tribunal whereby tribunal has dismissed appeal of department and allowed appeal of assessee. 3. This court while admitting appeals framed following substantial question of law:- 3.1 Appeal No.279/2009 admitted on 6.4.2009 1. Whether on facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in deleting entire addition of Rs.25,91,306/- made on account of undisclosed investment of assessee in plot located at Shyam Nagar, Jaipur by ignoring deposition of property dealer? 2. Whether Tribunal was justified in deleting addition of Rs.40,41,131/- made on account of undisclosed investment in land at Nityanand Nagar, Queens Road, Jaipur? 3.2 Appeal No.144/2011 admitted on 4.10.2012 Whether on facts & circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in deleting entire addition of Rs.25,91,306/- made on account of undisclosed investment of assessee in plot located at Shyam Nagar, Jaipur by ignoring deposition of property dealer? (3 of 5) [ ITA-279/2009] 4. Counsel for appellant has taken us to order of tribunal as well as CIT(A) and contended that view taken by tribunal is contrary to law and appeal deserves to be allowed. 4.1 He further contended that addition of Rs.40,41,131/- was also deleted from account of assessee as M/s Lodha Builders. 5. We have heard counsel for parties. 6. Before proceeding with matter, we may observe that on issue no.1 while considering addition of Rs.25,91,306/-, tribunal has observed as under:- In our view ld. CIT(A) was not justified in relying upon statements of Sh. Ashok Jain that plot in question was purchased through him at Rs.10 lac without appreciating that no opportunity of cross examination of Sh. Ashok Jain was afforded to assessee and further that AO in block assessment of Mrs. Neelam Lodha had himself come to conclusion that Mrs. Neelam Lodha was absolute owner of plot. It is also worth nothing that when Mrs. Neelam Lodha during course of search taken place on 16.11.1999 was found by A.O. in process of transfer of said plot, he was not justified in holding that assessee firm had made profit of Rs.25,91,306/- in period relevant to A.Y. 1997-98. Admittedly, no document was found or noticed during course of search for any investment by assessee firm hence, simply on basis that initial investments and some construction of skeleton house were made by assessee firm, such huge unjustified addition cannot be made in hands of assessee. So far as investment in construction in house on plot by assessee is concerned, it was submitted that investment was appearing in its books of accounts. This (4 of 5) [ ITA-279/2009] skeleton house was allotted to Mrs. Vijay Kanwar Lodha on 31.3.1996 against her capital and thereafter it was bequeathed to Sh. Sajjan Singh Lodha vide her Will dated 12.9.2001. Considering all these material facts we are of view that there was no any occasion before A.O. and ld. CIT(A) to make any addition in question. We thus, while setting aside orders of lower authorities on issue direct to delete addition sustained by ld. CIT(A) at Rs.19,45,000/- on account of presumed investment+capital gain u/s 45D(4) of Act in respect of property in question by estimating its market price at Rs.20 lac without any basis available to them that too in case of block assessment. ground no.1 of appeal preferred by revenue is thus rejected and that of assessee is allowed. 6.1 On other issue, tribunal in para no.10 & 11 held as under:- ld. AR at outset of hearing has pointed out that assessee firm had advanced Rs.1,50,000/- for plot but it was pruchased by M/s Lodha Builders. addition for property at 2, Nityanand Nagar, Jaipur was considered by AO as well as ld. CIT(A) in hands of M/s Lodha Builders. Now issue stands finally concluded by decision of Jaipur Bench of Tribunal in IT (SS) A. Nos.1 & 7/JP/2005 dated 28.9.2007 vide para no.19 of order in case of M/s Lodha Builders for block period 1.4.1989 to 16.11.1999. He submitted further that advance of Rs.1.5 lac made by assessee firm is now bad debts as no amount was returned back to it. Considering above aspect of matter we are of view that ld. CIT(A has rightly deleted addition on basis that entire addition has been considered in case of M/s Lodha Builders. first appellate order on issue is thus upheld. Ground no.2 is thus rejected. (5 of 5) [ ITA-279/2009] 7. It is made clear that upheld judgment in case of M/s Lodha Builders will not preclude department to argue other matter of Lodha Builders. For present case, addition of amount was rightly deleted from account of assessee. 8. In view of above, issues are answered in favour of assessee and against department. 9. appeals stand dismissed. copy of this judgment be placed in each file. (INDERJEET SINGH),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. Brijesh 43-44. Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Jaipur v. Pinkcity Builders / Vijay Kanwar Lodha (Deceased) / Ummaid Singh Lodha / Neelam Lodha
Report Error