The Dy. C.I.T. Vs. Gaurav Dalmia

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Gaurav Dalmia, filed his original return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 17.08.2016 and a revised return on 22.03.2017. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and an order under section 143(3) was passed on 19.12.2018 accepting the returned income. A search and seizure action was conducted on 17.03.2021, and subsequently, an assessment under section 153A was completed on 31.03.2023. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs 100,00,00,000/- under section 69A based on a document found from the residence of Shri Rakesh Aggarwal, an employee of the assessee. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee received unaccounted cash of Rs 100,00,00,000/- on account of the sale of shares of Landmark Hi Tech Development Private Limited to Uppal Chadha Hi Tech Developers Pvt Ltd. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the entire addition. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has also filed additional grounds under Rule 27.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the addition of Rs. 100 crores made under Section 69A is justified despite the presence of corroborative evidence in the form of a seized document and statements recorded under Section 132(4).
• 2. Whether the retraction of statements recorded under Section 132(4) can override the evidentiary value of such statements.
• 3. Whether the CIT (A) erred in holding that nominal shareholding precludes the addition of the entire amount of cash receipt of Rs. 100 crores.
• 4. Whether the CIT (A) erred in applying principles of consistency from other assessments.
• 5. Whether the CIT (A) is correct in relying on the valuation report submitted by the assessee.
• 6. Whether the CIT (Appeals) erred in accepting the assessee's explanation that the transaction of Rs. 100 crores recorded pertains to an investment made by Dalmia Group Holding in JM Financial Mutual Funds.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Shri Pandian Hari Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 11(4), Chennai

• Periyasamy Anbunathan vs The DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

• ITA No. 927/Ahd/2024

  Ahmedabad bench

• Dy. CIT, Delhi. Vs. Elan India Private Limited

  Delhi Bench ‘B’ benchAY 2019-20Dismissed

• Nitish Jain Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-54(1), New Delhi-110002

• Krishna Gopal Saraf Vs. The A.C.I.T

  Delhi ‘C’ Bench benchAY 2013-14, 2014-15Partly Allowed