Tribunal Partially Allows Appeals, Emphasizes Verification of Transactions & Creditor Identity

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals, remanding certain issues for further verification and deleting several additions made by the AO. It emphasized verifying the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of transactions and creditors, ensuring no duplication of additions across different assessees. The Tribunal directed the AO to credit surrendered income to Sumati Kumar Kasliwal if not already done by other assessees.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Assessment order barred by limitation.
2. Loan received assessed as income u/s 68.
3. Sale of shares assessed as income u/s 68.
4. Income received in cash by Sumati Kumar Kasliwal.
5. Share Capital.
6. On money on sales of plots.
7. Addition u/s 40A(3).
8. Telescoping of additions sustained vis-à-vis income surrendered.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Assessment Order Barred by Limitation:
The assessee argued that the assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 153B of the Income Tax Act. The Settlement Commission rejected the application on 08/05/2015, received by the Principal Commissioner on 18/05/2015, and the assessment order was passed on 29/01/2016, which is beyond the period of limitation. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) to determine the validity of the assessment order considering the limitation period.

2. Loan Received Assessed as Income u/s 68:
The Tribunal found that the assessee successfully proved the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the creditors. The loans were taken for a short period of two months and repaid with interest. No incriminating material was found during the search to prove the loans were accommodation entries. The Tribunal deleted the additions made by the AO under section 68 in the cases of Sumati Kumar Kasliwal, Parth Kasliwal, Sharda Kasliwal, and Nishant Finance Pvt. Ltd.

3. Sale of Shares Assessed as Income u/s 68:
The Tribunal noted that the sale of shares was recorded in the regular books of accounts, and the purchases were not doubted by the AO. Only the profit element should be taxed, not the entire sale consideration. The Tribunal deleted the additions made under section 68 in the cases of Sumati Kumar Kasliwal, Parth Kasliwal, Sharda Kasliwal, Nishant Finance Pvt. Ltd., and Pumarth Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

4. Income Received in Cash by Sumati Kumar Kasliwal:
Sumati Kumar Kasliwal admitted to receiving cash income of Rs. 13,61,94,600, which was routed through the books of Pumarth Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 14,57,12,069 in the hands of Sumati Kumar Kasliwal, including the cash income and other amounts, as the grounds were not pressed by the assessee.

5. Share Capital:
The Tribunal found that the addition of Rs. 13.60 crores as unexplained share capital in the hands of Pumarth Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. was not justified since the same amount was already taxed in the hands of Sumati Kumar Kasliwal. The Tribunal deleted the addition in the case of Pumarth Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

6. On Money on Sales of Plots:
The Tribunal followed the precedent set in the group’s other cases, where only the profit element of the 'on-money' received was taxed. The Tribunal restricted the addition to 25% of the undisclosed receipts, amounting to Rs. 35,42,575 for AY 2012-13 and Rs. 32,84,188 for AY 2013-14 in the case of Pumarth Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

7. Addition u/s 40A(3):
The Tribunal remanded the issue of disallowance under section 40A(3) back to the AO for verification, allowing the assessee to provide necessary evidence to support its claim that no disallowance was warranted.

8. Telescoping of Additions Sustained vis-à-vis Income Surrendered:
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the income surrendered by various assessees and ensure that credit for such income was given to Sumati Kumar Kasliwal if not already accounted for by the respective assessees.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, remanding certain issues for further verification and deleting several additions made by the AO. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of verifying the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of transactions and creditors, and ensuring that additions are not duplicated across different assessees.

---