AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’ s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024–25/1069994543(1) dated 28.10.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in shor t “the Act”).
Heard both the p arties at length. Case file perused.
This Revenue’s appeal raises the follow ing substantive grounds:
“1 . Whether o n the facts and circ umstanc es of t he case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred i n del eting the addition of Rs.3,38,72,500/- on account of unexpl ai ned pay ments ignoring t he effor ts made by the A O seeki ng a comprehe nsive list of questi ons from the assess ee as Sh. R K Miglani expres sed his inabil ity to appear i n per son.
2.That the d epartment crav es to add or amend t he grounds o f app eal befor e Hon’bl e ITAT is finally heard or dispos ed of. ”
We next note with the able assistance coming fro m both the parities that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned additio n of Rs.3,38,72,500/- in the assessee’s hands in his assessment order as representing it’s alleged unexplained payments based on a search/ survey action conducted on the premises of M/s Radico Khaitan and statement r ecorded from Mr. R. K. Miglani (General Secretary of Uttar Prad esh Distillery Association). Learned CIT(A) has admittedly reversed the same for the so le reason that the very issue stands decided in the assessee’s favour and against the department.
That being the case, le arned counsel has invited our attention to the tribunal’s co mmon order dated 14.12.2018 in the assessee’s and the other connected matters duly co ncluding therein the impugned addition is neither based on any seized material nor did it stand corroborated by the learned departmental authorities all along . The Revenue is indeed very fair during the course o f hearing before us in no t pin-pointing on any distinction on facts and law in all these cases, so as to adopt a different approach in the asse ssee’s case in the impugned assessment year. We thus uphold the learned CIT(A)’s action reversing the assessment findings making the alleged unexplained payment expenditure in the assessee’s hands.
No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.
This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.