" Page 1 of 27 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत Ɋायपीठ, सूरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 (AY:2013-14) D R Corporation, 728 to 730, Golden Plaza, Nr. Kinnary Cinema, Gujarat - 395002 (PAN: AAFFD8243H) बनाम/ Vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat - 395001 (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) & ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 (AY: 2013-14) D R Associates, 728 to 730, Golden Plaza, Nr. Kinnery Cinema, Gujarat – 395002 (PAN:AAFFD9981Q) बनाम/ Vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat - 395001 (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Revenue by Shri J.K. Chandnani, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 06.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 01.10.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, AM: The captioned two appeals have been filed by two different assessees which are sister-concerns and the underlying facts and issues are identical, therefore they were heard together at the request of parties and are being Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 2 of 27 disposed of by this consolidated order, for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. During hearing, the learned Representatives selected ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 for arguments and therefore we first take up this appeal. ITA No. 265/SRT/2024: 2. Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 06.02.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [\"Ld. CIT(A)\"], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 31.03.2016 passed by learned ACIT, Circle-1(2), Surat [\"Ld. AO\"] u/s 143(3) of Income- tax Act, 1961 [\"the Act\"] for Assessment-Year [\"AY\"] 2013-14, the assessee \"D R Corporation\" has filed this appeal. 3. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that: (i) The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of development and construction of housing projects. (ii) A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on 04.01.2013 at the premises of the assessee-firm and its sister-concern “D R Associates”. During survey proceedings, statement of Shri Ravi Khandelwal, partner of the assessee-firm, was recorded on oath. In post-survey proceedings, vide letter dated 11.01.2013, the assessee offered undisclosed income of Rs. 2,53,17,855/- on account of on-money received in respect of its project. Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 3 of 27 (iii) Subsequently, the assessee filed its return of income of AY 2013-14 under consideration declaring a total income of Rs. 42,04,650/- inclusive of unaccounted income of Rs. 41,45,010/- out of total disclosure of Rs. 2,53,17,855/- made during survey. (iv) The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny and, during assessment-proceedings, the Ld. AO issued a show-cause notice asking assessee as to why the addition should not be made for the remaining income not disclosed in return. In response, the assessee submitted that it would recognise ‘on-money receipts’ as income in respective years upon sale/transfer of title of respective flats to the buyers. The assessee mainly relied upon the decisions of (i) Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Ashaland Corporation (1982) 133 ITR 55 (Guj) and (ii) ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in case of its another sister-concern, M/s. D.R. Construction Vs. Income-tax Officer, ITA No. 2735/Ahd/2010. (v) The Ld. AO accepted assessee’s explanation and following the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Ashaland Corporation (supra), allowed credit for undisclosed income offered by assessee in the returns of AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, aggregating to Rs. 69,21,680/-. Finally, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 1,83,96,175/- [Rs. 2,53,17,855 (-) Rs. 69,21,680/-] and completed assessment u/s 143(3). Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 4 of 27 (vi) Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and contended that it had, till date, offered a total income of Rs. 1,25,52,210/- out of the disclosure of Rs. 2,53,17,855/- made during survey, on a year-to-year basis in AYs 2013-14 to 2023-24, corresponding to the area of the project actually sold/title transferred to buyers in each year. The details of such year-to-year offering made by assessee is extracted by Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.2 of his order, the same is re-produced in later part of this order. (vii) The Ld. CIT(A) also, following the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Ashaland Corporation (supra), accepted the submission of assessee and directed the Ld. AO to verify the assessee's claim of having shown the undisclosed income in the returns of income filed for AYs 2016-17 to 2023-24 and, if found correct, delete the addition to that extent. At the same time, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed addition for remaining amount of undisclosed income of Rs. 1,27,65,645/- [Rs. 2,53,17,855 (-) Rs. 1,25,52,210/-]. This way, the Ld. CIT(A) granted part-relief to assessee. (viii) Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in present appeal before us. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds: \"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in partly confirming the action of assessing officer by sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,27,65,645/- out of total addition of Rs. Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 5 of 27 1,83,96,175/- on account of on money received from the project not declared in the return of income.\" \"2. It is therefore prayed that the above addition made by the assessing officer and partly confirmed by the CIT(A) may please be allowed.\" \"3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.\" 5. The limited grievance of assessee before us is the confirmation of addition of Rs. 1,27,65,645/- by Ld. CIT(A). 6. At first, we re-produce below the relevant portion of assessment-order passed by the Ld. AO: “Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Ashaland Corporation (133 ITR 55) has held that income accrues on the sale of land and arises in the year in which the title of the property is transferred and not in the year in which the assessee received part of consideration and earnest money. Above decision o the Hon’ble High Court is applicable in this case as the facts of the cited case are similar to the facts of the case of the assessee. Hence decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court is followed here in the case of assessee. It has been contended that the assessee has already offered certain amount of the on-money assessable during the F.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15, relevant to A.Y.s 2014-15 and 2015-16. Hence, the taxation of the entire declared income during the subject assessment year will lead to double taxation of the income which has been offered suo motu by the assessee (Upon sale of the flats and execution of Sale Deeds) during subsequent A.Y.s, A.Y.s 2014-15 and 2015-16. Such claim has been examined and it appears that for the sake of justice and fairness, the on-money which has been offered in A.Y.s 2014-15 and 2015-16 in respective returns of income are to given credit to. Therefore, the assessment of unaccounted income in hands of the assessee on account of on-money detected and admitted during Survey proceedings is restricted to aggregate unaccounted income less the unaccounted income which has already been offered to tax subsequently. Taxation of the full disclosed amount will lead to scenario of the offered amount being taxed twice. Accordingly argument of the assessee is partly accepted and credit of the offered undisclosed income shown in the various assessment years are allowed against the offered undisclosed income admitted by the assessee at the time of post survey proceedings. Offered undisclosed income shown by the assessee in the different assessment years are taken into account and unaccounted income is computed as under: Offered undisclosed income in the survey Rs. 2,53,17,855/- Less: undisclosed income offered in the ITR in the AY 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 6 of 27 (41,45,010 + 11,73,505/- +16,03,165/-) Rs. 69,21,680/- Rs. 1,83,96,175/-“ 7. Now, we re-produce the relevant portion of the order passed by Ld. CIT(A): “4. The grounds of appeal no. 1 & 2 are interlinked, hence dealt together, are against the action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 1,83,96,175/- on account of on money received from the project not declared in the return income. 4.1 I have carefully considered the assessment order and submission filed by the appellant. The brief facts of the case are that a survey proceedings u/s. 133A Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 7 of 27 Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 8 of 27 Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 9 of 27 Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 10 of 27 Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 11 of 27 8. Before us, the Ld. AR for assessee made following submissions: (i) That, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat, in CIT Vs. Ashaland Corporation (1982) 133 ITR 55 (Guj), has held that the income on sale of land/flats arises only in the year in which title in the property is transferred to buyers and not in the year in which the advance consideration/on-money is received. (ii) That, both of the lower authorities have applied the aforesaid ratio of Hon’ble High Court and, following the same, given credit for the income offered by assessee in the returns of income filed on year-to- year basis, as and when the flats were actually sold. The Ld. AO has allowed credit for the disclosure made by the assessee in the returns of AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, aggregating to Rs. 69,21,680/-, till completion of assessment. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has given credit for AYs 2013-14 to 2023-24, aggregating to Rs. 1,25,52,210/-, till passing of the first-appeal order. Thus, the lower authorities are not against the claim of assessee. (iii) That, the assessee has, subsequently after passing of order by Ld. CIT(A), further offered income of Rs. 16,51,680/- in AY 2024-25 and Rs. 32,70,345/- in AY 2025-26 corresponding to the area of flats sold in those years. Further, the assessee has quantified the disclosable income of Rs. 41,49,040/- in AY 2026-27 based on area of flats sold in that year and going to offer the same in the return of income of AY Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 12 of 27 2026-27 yet to be filed. Furthermore, the assessee undertakes to offer the balance income of Rs. 36,94,580/- in AY 2027-28 irrespective of whether or not the documents passing title upon the buyers are executed and whether or not the full consideration is received from buyers. Thus, the disclosure upto AY 2027-28 would complete the entire on-money receipts of Rs. 2,53,17,855/- surrendered during the survey. During hearing, the Ld. AR asserted to file an undertaking- letter in this behalf and subsequently filed the same. For an immediate reference, we re-produce below the letter filed by Ld. AR: Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 13 of 27 Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 14 of 27 Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 15 of 27 9. Finally, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s claim in present appeal is very limited i.e. to give further credit of the disclosure made or to be made in AYs 2024-25 to 2027-28. He submitted that the assessee’s claim is based on the binding decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and ITAT, Ahmedabad in sister concern’s case. Those decisions have already been applied by both of the lower-authorities and the present claim of assessee is a continuation thereof; the assessee is not making any new or different claim. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested that the undisclosed income of Rs. 41,45,010/- offered by assessee in AY 2013-14 under consideration ought to be accepted and no further addition is required to be made. Ld. AR requested to delete the addition confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). 10. During hearing, Ld. AR also invited attention of the Bench to a decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Surat Vs. Happy Home Corporation (2018) 94 taxmann.com 292 (Guj), the relevant paras are re-produced below: “Akil Kureshi, J. - Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 01-06-2017 raising following question for our consideration: \"Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the findings of the CIT(A) in respect of deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed income to the tune of Rs. 26,05,00,000/- disclosed during the course of survey u/s. 133A of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?\" 2. Broadly stated, the facts are that the respondent assessee is engaged in construction business. The respondent was subjected to a survey action which was conducted on the business premises on 18-10-2010. During such survey, incriminating documents were impounded. Statement of Shri Mukesh Patel, the partner of the respondent firm was recorded. In such statement, he Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 16 of 27 admitted the firm having received a sum of Rs. 26,05,00,000/- which was not disclosed in the account or to the income tax department. He agreed that the said was firm's unaccounted income and also agreed to pay tax on the same. He also stated that the same pertained to the income of the current year. While doing so, he added that however, the same would be subject to the registration of the sale deeds. 3. When the assessment was undertaken, the assessee contended that the firm is following Project Completion Method of accounting and the income would be offered to tax as and when the final sale deeds are registered. He offered only a sum of Rs.1 crore during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer rejected the stand and pinned down the assessee to the statement of the partner, contents of which we have noted above. He added the entire amount of Rs. 26.05 crores as the income of the assessee during the current year. 4. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted such addition which was confirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that since the firm was following Project Completion Method for offering the income to tax, the same would be subjected to tax upon completion of sale, though the amount may have been received earlier from the buyer. We notice that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) made a specific mention of the fact that the assessee in fact, had offered such income to tax in the later years as and when the sale deeds were executed. The Tribunal thus confirmed this view of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 5. The Revenue does not object to the assessee's following Project Completion Method of accounting. The Revenue also does not dispute the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the same income was offered to tax in the later years as and when the sale deeds were executed. The Revenue only objects to the stand of the assessee on the ground that in his statement, the partner of the firm had disclosed the entire amount as the income of the current year. We have noticed that the contents of the statement, in which, while agreeing that the said sum of Rs. 26.05 crores was the undisclosed income of the assessee for the current year, he added a clarification that the same would be subject to execution of the sale deeds. We therefore find no error in the view of the Tribunal. 6. Tax Appeal is dismissed.” According to Ld. AR, this decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court directly addresses an identical issue as involved in present appeal. 11. Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue submitted as under: Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 17 of 27 (i) That, survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on 04.01.2013 and the assessee had already received on-money by that time, i.e., in previous year 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14 under consideration. Therefore, the on-money receipt was taxable in AY 2013-14 itself. According to Ld. DR, it is a clear case of postponement of tax by assessee to different assessment-years. That, although the revenue is not against the relief already granted by the Ld. CIT(A), the remaining addition of Rs. 1,27,65,645/- sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) should not be disturbed. (ii) That, the Ld. CIT(A) has, in Para 4.5 of the impugned order, categorically and rightly observed that a period of 10 years is a long time. According to Ld. DR, the property itself gets dilapidated in such a long period, therefore, there is no plausible explanation as to how registration of the remaining area could be postponed for such a long period. Ld. DR accordingly supported the impugned order of first-appeal passed by Ld. CIT(A) and requested to uphold the same. 12. In re-joinder, Ld. AR submitted that the real estate business has its own peculiarities. The projects undertaken are long-term in nature and take considerable time to complete. The buyers also make delay in payments and taking possession for reasons attributable to them. Further, there was Covid-19 situation also during intervening period. Hence, there is no valid Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 18 of 27 reason to adversely view the time taken in executing the sale-deeds and passing title upon the buyers. 13. We have heard rival submissions of both sides and perused the orders of lower authorities as well as the material held on record to which our attention has been drawn. We have also considered the facts of the issue in the light of judicial decisions cited before us. 14. It is not in dispute that both the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) have applied the ratio of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Ashaland Corporation (supra) holding that the income from sale of immovable property/flats accrues only in the year in which the sale-deed is executed and title is transferred and not on mere receipt of advance/on-money. On this very basis, the Ld. AO has himself given credit for the income offered by assessee in AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 till completion of assessment. Following the very same approach, the Ld. CIT(A) has given further credit of the incomes offered by assessee in AYs 2016-17 to 2023-24 till completion of first-appellate proceedings. The very same principle has further been reiterated and accepted by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Happy Home Corporation (supra) wherein an assessee following the project- completion method was held taxable only in the year of registration of sale- deeds, notwithstanding the disclosure of on-money during survey. Therefore, we find no reason to deny credit for the incomes offered by assessee in AYs 2024-25 onwards, subsequent to the completion of first appellate Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 19 of 27 proceedings. In fact, giving credit for the income offered by assessee in AYs 2024-25 onwards is a continuation of the view/approach already adopted by both of the lower authorities i.e. the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) in their respective orders. Needless to mention that the assessee has not remained stationary; it has continued to offer the on-money to tax in the respective years of registration of sale-deeds, including Rs. 16,51,680/- in AY 2024-25 and Rs. 32,70,345/- in AY 2025-26, and has undertaken to offer the remaining amount in AY 2026-27 & 2027-28. This continuing and consistent conduct supports the assessee's stand that the disclosed on- money is being offered strictly on a year-wise basis as and when the corresponding sale-deeds are registered and is not being permanently withheld or escaped from taxation. 15. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the balance sum of Rs. 1,27,65,645/- ought to be dealt with on the same footing as the rest of the disclosure already dealt by the lower authorities. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 1,27,65,645/- and direct the Ld. AO to verify, on the very same terms as directed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of AYs 2016-17 to 2023-24. Accordingly, the Ld. AO is directed to make a limited verification as to the claim of assessee of offering the undisclosed income of on-money in the returns of AYs 2025-26 to 2027- 28 and if found correct, delete the addition accordingly. The Ld. AO shall, after verification, be at liberty to bring to tax in AY 2013-14 such portion of the disclosed on-money as is not found to have been offered to tax in those Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 20 of 27 years in accordance with the aforesaid principle and undertaking-letter filed by Ld. AR. It is further made clear that the aforesaid direction is confined to the assessment years covered by the undertaking filed before us, i.e. up to AY 2027-28, and no further deferment shall be claimed on the basis of the present order. The assessee’s grounds are accordingly allowed in these terms. 16. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 264/SRT/2024: 17. Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 06.02.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [\"Ld. CIT(A)\"], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 31.03.2016 passed by learned ACIT, Circle-1(2), Surat [\"Ld. AO\"] u/s 143(3) of Income- tax Act, 1961 [\"the Act\"] for Assessment-Year [\"AY\"] 2013-14, the assessee \"D R Associates\" has filed this appeal. 18. The following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in partly confirming the action of assessing officer by sustaining the addition of 1,54,26,375/- out of total addition of Rs. 4,57,15,390/- on account of on money received from the project not declared in the return of income. “2. It is therefore, prayed that the above addition made by the assessing officer and party confirmed by the CIT(A) may please be allowed. “3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 21 of 27 19. The issue and underlying facts involved in present appeal are identical to those in ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 of D R Corporation, which has been adjudicated by us in foregoing part of this order. Therefore, the discussions and adjudication made therein, shall apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal also, subject to the difference in figures. In present matter, the partner of assessee-firm Shri Ravi Khandelwal declared undisclosed on-money receipts of Rs. 7,62,13,500/-. The assessee offered income of Rs. 1,35,65,290/- in AY 2013-14 under consideration, Rs. 86,74,265/- in AY 2014-15 and Rs. 82,58,555/- in AY 2015-16, aggregating to Rs. 3,04,98,110/-, till completion of assessment by AO. Accordingly, the Ld. AO allowed credit of Rs. 3,04,98,110/- and made addition for remaining undisclosed income of Rs. 4,57,15,390/-. During first-appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed credit of income of Rs. 6,07,87,125/- offered by assessee in AYs 2013-14 to 2023-24, till completion of first-appeal proceeding, and confirmed the remaining addition of Rs. 1,54,26,375/-. The year-wise break up of the disclosure for AYs 2013- 14 to 2023-24 accepted by Ld. CIT(A), as per details noted in Para 4.2 of his order, is given below for an immediate reference: Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 22 of 27 20. Now, it is submission of assessee that the assessee has subsequently offered further income of Rs. 1,14,87,205/- in AY 2024-25 and Rs. 23,17,250/- in AY 2025-26 corresponding to the area of flats sold in those respective years. Further, the assessee has quantified the disclosable income of Rs. 16,21,920/- in AY 2026-27 and going to offer the same in the return of income of AY 2026-27 yet to be filed. Thus, the disclosures upto AY 2026-27 would complete the entire on-money receipts of Rs. 7,62,13,500/- surrendered during the survey. During hearing, the Ld. AR Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 23 of 27 asserted to file an undertaking-letter in this behalf and subsequently filed the same. For an immediate reference, we re-produce below the letter filed by Ld. AR: Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 24 of 27 Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 25 of 27 Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 26 of 27 21. Therefore, applying the view taken by us in ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 adjudicated in foregoing part of this order, we set aside the finding of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 1,54,26,375/- and direct the Ld. AO to verify, on the very same terms as directed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of AYs 2016-17 to 2023-24. Accordingly, the Ld. AO is directed to make a limited verification as to the claim of assessee of offering the undisclosed income of on-money in the returns of AYs 2025-26 to 2026-27 and if found correct, delete the addition accordingly. The Ld. AO shall, after verification, be at liberty to bring to tax in AY 2013-14 such portion of the disclosed on-money as is not found to have been offered to tax in those years in accordance with the aforesaid principle and undertaking-letter filed by Ld. AR. It is further made clear that the aforesaid direction is confined to the assessment years covered by the undertaking filed before us, i.e. up to AY 2026-27, and no further deferment shall be claimed on the basis of the present order. The assessee’s grounds are accordingly allowed in these terms. 22. In this appeal, the assessee has also filed an additional ground as under: “On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the claim of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) made for the first time before Honourable Tribunal may please be allowed as all the conditions for claim of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) are complied by the assessee and the same was allowed in the scrutiny assessment for A.Y. 2018-19 and succeeding years.” 23. During hearing, Ld. DR for revenue made a strong submission against admissibility as well as merits of ground. After some discussions, the Ld. AR Printed from counselvise.com D R Corporation Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 D R Associates Vs. ACIT – ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 - A.Y. 2013-14 Page 27 of 27 for assessee was satisfied and asserted for not pressing this ground. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 24. Resultantly, this appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 25. In result, ITA No. 265/SRT/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No. 264/SRT/2024 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 01/10/2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat िदनांक /Dated : 01/10/2026 Neelesh/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYAssistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Surat Bench, Surat Printed from counselvise.com "