$ 38 * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 107/2020 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL)-3, Appellant Through: Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Shailender Singh, Advocate. versus M/S INTIME PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ORDER % 18.02.2020 CM APPL. 6383/2020 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. application stands disposed of. ITA 107/2020 & CM APPL. 6384/2020 (delay) 3. There is delay of 150 days in filing appeal. 4. We have heard learned senior standing counsel for Revenue on merits. Since we are not inclined to interfere in present appeal, we do not deem it appropriate to pass any order on application seeking condonation of delay. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:29.02.2020 15:43:55 5. revenue is in appeal against order dated 29.03.2019 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi-C Bench, New Delhi , dismissing appeal preferred by revenue in ITA No. 3157/DEL/2014 relating to Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06. By impugned order, Tribunal has accepted appeal of respondent-Assessee and rejected appeal preferred by revenue. 6. assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 6,00,720/-. same was processed under Section 143(1) and case was selected for scrutiny. Notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 11.10.2006 and questionnaire was issued to assessee. During course of assessment proceedings, survey operation was conducted on 20.02.2007 on Taneja Developer and Infrastructure Ltd. During said survey, certain documents were seized. It appears that three loose sheets were recovered during said survey which belonged to assessee. said sheets contained particulars broker-wise due as on 12.01.2005 . said sheets contained tabulation, giving name of broker and against name of broker amount was indicated. Assessing Officer (AO) computed same at Rs.1,46,55,94,222/-. AO held that assessee had not reflected said amount, as received, in its books of account and consequently, proceeded to add said amount as income of assessee for AY 2005-06. plea of assessee that said amount had not been received in AY 2005-06 and that same was recoverable in subsequent years, and as matter of fact, amount of Rs.1,42,48,36,949/- was indeed recovered in subsequent financial years was not appreciated by AO. assessee then preferred appeal Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:29.02.2020 15:43:55 before CIT (A) who called for remand report and accepted appeal preferred by respondent-Assessee. Tribunal, as aforesaid has rejected appeal preferred by revenue. 7. Ms. Malhotra, senior standing counsel submits that respondent- Assessee does not dispute that loose sheets recovered during survey operations from Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. indeed belong to assessee. She submits that broker wise dues reflected in said loose sheets was income of assessee during assessment year in question. 8. Having heard Ms. Malhotra and perused entire record, including assessment order, order passed by CIT (A) and ITAT, we do not find any reason to interfere in impugned order. documents recovered during survey operation have to be read as they exist and nothing can be added to them. said documents disclose what they state. said documents reflect broker-wise due as on 12.01.2005 . This clearly means that tabulation reflected amount recoverable by assessee from named brokers, as on 12.01.2005, and it did not reflect amount actually received or accrued. assessee, admittedly, is real estate developer and its explanation that it had received booking amount of Rs.17 crores, which was reflected in book of accounts to AY 2005-06, and that in respect of said bookings, further amounts were to be received in subsequent years was completely plausible explanation. Indeed, assessee disclosed in its books of accounts further receipt of Rs.1,34,59,86,447/- in subsequent years, and assessee also reflected balance amount due as Rs.7,88,50,502/-. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:29.02.2020 15:43:55 9. In aforesaid circumstances, we are of view that AO was not justified in making addition of Rs.1,46,55,94,922/- on account of sales. 10. appeal is accordingly dismissed. VIPIN SANGHI, J SANJEEV NARULA, J FEBRUARY 18, 2020 v Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:29.02.2020 15:43:55 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central)-3 v. Intime Promoters Pvt. Ltd