TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1071
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the same group of cases these cases were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 3. We will first take up appeals No. IT(SS)150 to 155/Ind/2017 & ITA No.428/Ind/2017 in the case of Shri Sanjay Kumar Sinha where following grounds are raised; Assessment Year 2007-08 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case :- 1. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2. That the additions are illegal and bad in law as they are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 35,17,199/- on account of alleged unaccounted credits in bank account u/s 69 of the Act. 4. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on account of unaccounted cash deposit of Rs. 1,71,700/-. 5. That the ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. That the ld CIT(A) erred in no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipts of Rs. 3,89,300/- u/s 17(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. 7. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Assessment Year 2010-11 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case :- 1. The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2. That the additions are illegal and bad in law as they are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,65,000/- on account of alleged unaccounted credits in bank account u/s 69 of the Act. 4. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on account of unaccounted cash deposit of Rs. 3,34,200/-. 5. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... during the course of search. 3. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 30,51,950/- on account of alleged unaccounted credits in bank account u/s 69 of the Act. 4. That the ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on account of unaccounted cash deposit of Rs. 5,30,000/- 5. That the ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 8,42,000/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act,1961. 6. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee Shri Sanjay Kumar Sinha is one of the Director of Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd which is engaged in the business of real estate developer and builder. Search u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 30.11.2012 at the business premises of the company as well as at the residential premises of the Directors including the assessee. Notice u/s 153A of the Act were issued to file return of income for Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2013-14 and the same were filed. Assessee had already filed regular ret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supported the orders of lower authorities and also contended that documents were found at the business premises of Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd and they related to the assessee also. 9. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the judgments referred and relied by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. In the common issue raised by the assessee in Ground No. 2 for Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2013-14, it is contended that in absence of any incriminating material no addition was called for in the assessment years which were not pending as on the date of search. The details of return filed u/s 139 of the Act and due date of issuance of notice u/s 143(2) for Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2011-12 is mentioned below; A.Y Date of filing of Return u/s 139(1) Due date for issue of notice u/s 143(2) Status on date of search 2007-08 Verification at (PAPER BOOK 46) 25.07.07 (PB44) 30.09.2008 Return processed u/s 143(1). No notice u/s 143(2) 2008-09 (PAPER BOOK-59) Date not clear 30.09.2010 (Max) Return processed u/s 143(1). No notice u/s 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....II V/s Kabul Chawla (supra) adjudicating the similar issue relating to the addition made in the assessment u/s 153A of the Act in absence of any incriminating material held in favour of the assessee by giving summary of decisions as well as holding that no additions could have been made to the income already assessed since no incriminating material was unearthed by observing as follows:- Summary of the legal position 37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed by the AOs as a fresh exercise. iii. The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riminating material found during the course of search and the impugned additions are based on the details of documents called from the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings which were regularly disclosed in the return of income. In the result this common issue raised in Ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal for Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2011-12 are allowed and Ground No.2 for Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 stands dismissed. 13. As we have already deleted the additions for Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2011-12 by allowing Ground No.2 raised by the assessee, the other grounds raised on merits of the case for various additions made for Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2011-12 becomes infructuous and thus liable to be dismissed as infructuous. 14. Now we take up ITA (SS) 150/Ind/2007 in the case of Shri Sanjay Kumar Sinha for Assessment Year 2012-13. Apropos Ground No.3 in which the assessee has challenged the finding of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of alleged unaccounted credits in bank accounts u/s 69 of the Act. Facts in brief are that in compliance to the questionnaire u/s 142(1) dated 14.7.2014 assessee was asked to furnish th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioned by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee primarily show that the alleged amount is not coming under the purview of deemed dividend but still as there is no specific finding by both the lower authorities discussing about these document, we find it appropriate to set aside this issue of deemed dividend for Assessment Year 2012-13 to the file of Ld.A.O for necessary verification after giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee in order to place documents in support of its contention that the alleged amount of Rs. 32,50,769/- is not taxable as deemed dividend but it is a part of amount received against the advance salary and share of joint venture project. Thus Ground No.4 for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed for statistical purposes. 20. Now we take up Ground No.5 relating to addition of Rs. 63,50,000/- on account of unaccounted investment u/s 69 of the Act. Brief facts are that during the course of search original deeds in the name of persons other than the assessee namely Smt. Vinita Parashar (value of property Rs. 17,50,000/-) Shri G.P. Sinha and Shri Shailendra Kumar Sinha (property value at Rs. 46 lakhs) were found. As the original sale deeds were found in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or total Sale consideration of Rs. 1082600/- dated 7.1.2012. Shri Shailendra Kr. Sinha S/o Shri Ram Dayal Shina and Smt. Neelam Sinha W/o vill. & post suitha dost. Patna state Bihar. 3. FS- 5 as per LPS - 1/2, page Number 22 to 44 55. (PB 245-252) Sale Deep between M/S Fortune Soumya Housing office at Fortune House, plot No. 157, Zone-I, MP Nagar Bhopal thought its partners Shri Ajay Mohgaonkar S/o Shri S.W. Mohgaonkar and Shri Sameer Goupta S/o Shri S.C. Gupta R/o 31-A, B.D.A. colony, Koh-e-fiza, Bhopal (seller) and the purchaser's are Shri Shailendra Kr. Sinha S/o Shri Ram Dayal Sinha and Smt. Neelam Shina W/o Shri Shailendra Sinha R/o Vill. & post Suitha Distt. Ptana State Bihar of free Hold residential plot No. C-58 area 1156 Sq.ft. Situated at Tulip Greens, Gram Mahabadia, Tehsil Hurzu, Distt, Bhopal for total of Rs. 1082600/- dated 7.1.2012. Shri Shailendra Kr. Sinha S/oShri Ram Dayal Shina and Smt. Neelam Sinha W/o vill. & post suitha dost. Patna state Bihar. 44. FS-5 as per LPS- 1/2, page no. 42 to 62 56. (PB 262-269) Sale Deep between M/S Fortune Soumya Housing office at Fortune House, plot No. 157, Zone-I, MP Nagar Bhopal thought its partners....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the owners of the properties have paid consideration for acquiring deed and there is no evidence to show that the alleged investment in the properties has been made by the assessee. Therefore addition for unaccounted investment of Rs. 46,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act stands deleted. 25. As far as the property of Smt. Vinita Parashar is concerned it is true that the original sale deed was seized from the residence of the appellant but in response to the summon issued to Smt. Vinita Parashar, her father namely Shri Shriram Choudhary appeared and stated that he is an employee of State Government and has sold one plot admeasuring 2400 sq.ft at Kolar road and receipt from sale of the plot was invested in the property in the name of daughter. The document related to this purchase was duly executed but was pending for registration and the document seized was a normal business document found at the Directors residence. No other connection was established between the assessee and Smt. Vinita Parashar. Shri Shriram Choudhary has categorically accepted that the investment has been made by him in the name of his daughter from his own fund received from sale of plot at Kolar Road. Therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t this paper. The addition for this amount has also been made in the hands of Shri Rajeev Sharma and treated it to be as unaccounted transaction of Shri Sanjay Sinha. There is no mention of any date and particular of transaction on this seized document. Name of the assessee is not appearing but just a word "SS" is appearing. It is a well settled in law that the loose papers and documents cannot possibly be construed as books of account regularly kept in the course of business. Such evidence would, therefore, be outside the purview of Section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1972. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V.C. Shukla (1988) 8 SSC 410 and Chuharmal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1988) 172 250 38 Taxmann 190 (SC) has held that "revenue cannot be justified in resting its case on the loose papers, diary and documents found from third party if such documents contained narrations of transactions with the assessee". The above view of Hon'ble Apex Court was followed in the case of Shree Parshwanath Construction 24 ITJ 409 (Trib. Indore) and in the case of Addl. CIT V/s Lata Mangeshkar 97 ITR 696 (Bom.). 31. It was also settled law in the case of Am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....20/- at the close of October, 2007 there was sufficient cash balance in the hands of the assessee which could explain the source of cash deposits. The Ld. Counsel therefore requested to set aside the issue to the file of the Ld.A.O for necessary verification. Ld. Departmental Representative did not opposed to this request. 36. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The alleged addition of Rs. 5,30,000/- challenged by the assessee in Ground No.4 for Assessment Year 2013-14 for not explaining the addition of the cash deposit in the bank account held with Axis Bank. The cash flow statement have been filed by the assessee. As on 1.4.2012 the opening cash in hand shown as Rs. 43,84,311/-. Primarily this figure supports the contention of the assessee. However as these details were not placed before the lower authorities, we deem it appropriate to set aside the issue for unaccounted cash deposits of Rs. 5,30,000/- to the file of Ld.A.O for necessary verification after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee in order to file the cash flow statement. In the result Ground No.4 raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14 is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und during the course of search. 3. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on account of unaccounted cash deposit of Rs. 69,000/- (wrongly written by CIT(A) as Rs. 32,000/-) out of total cash deposit of Rs. 1,01,000/- That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on account of unaccounted cash deposit of Rs. 5,82,000/-. 4. That the ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 65,000/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on account of alleged undisclosed perquisites as undisclosed receipts of Rs. 3,61,666/- u/s 17(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. 6. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in making addition of Rs. 2,90,000/- on account of alleged unaccounted credits in bank account u/s 69 of the Act. 7. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Assessment Year 2009-10 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case :- 1. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the assessment order, which is bad-in-la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2. That the additions are illegal and bad in law as they are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on account of unaccounted cash deposit of Rs. 20,000/-.. 4. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- on account of alleged unaccounted credits in bank account u/s 69 of the act. 5. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Assessment Year 2012-13 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case :- 1. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2. That the additions are illegal and bad in law as they are not based on any incriminating material found during the cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT (Central)-III V/s Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Delhi). 43. In the instant case also the facts remains same. Return of income for Assessment Ye1r 2007-08 to 2011-12 stands filed as per the provisions of Section 139 of the Act. Date of search was 30.11.12. The last date for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act for Assessment Year 2011-12 was 30.9.2012, thus it remains undisputed that before the date of search due date for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act stood expired for Assessment Year 2007-08 to Assessment Year 2011-12. Further from perusal of the assessment order for Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2011-12, we find that the additions have been made for cash deposit, deemed dividend, undisclosed perquisites, unaccounted credit in bank, booking of bogus loss, unaccounted investment u/s 69 of the Act. And unaccounted Capital Gains. No live link have been established by the Ld.A.O for making these additions with any incriminating material found during the course of search. The additions have been made merely on the basis of details called for in the course of regular assessment proceedings. 44. We, therefore ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....M/s Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd vide ITA (SS)No. 124 to 129/Ind/2017, ITA(SS) No.141 to 146/Ind/2017, ITA (SS) No.317/Ind/2017 & ITA(SS) No.342/Ind/2017 wherein the additions were made in the hands of M/s. Soumya Homes Pvt.Ltd for difference between the stamp duty valuation and purchase consideration. While deciding the issue in that case we have held that the transaction have been carried out at fair market value as lower rates for the properties were charged to the other customers in comparison to those charged to the Director or the relatives and thus the purchase consideration paid by the plot owners was accepted and the addition was deleted. We also held that the provisions of Section 50C of the Act are not applicable on the sale of stock in trade for the transactions entered during the year under appeal. In view of our above decision, we are inclined to hold that no addition of Rs. 1,05,100/- was called for in the hands of the assessee as undisclosed perquisite. Thus Ground No.4 of the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed. 50. Now we take up assessee's appeal in the case of Smt. Anjana Sinha for Assessment Year 2013-14 vide ITA No.429/Ind/2017. 51. Apropos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of Shri R.P. Sinha for necessary verification with the assistance of the assessee, after providing him necessary opportunity of being heard. Ground No. 5 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 55. Ground No.6 is raised against the additions of Rs. 5,46,800/- on account of unaccounted capital gains. 56. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for not pressing this ground. We therefore confirm the addition of Rs. 5,46,800/- and dismiss ground No.6 for Assessment Year 2013-14 as not pressed. 57. The other grounds are general in nature which needs no adjudication. 58. In the result the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2011-12 are allowed and for Assessment Year 2012-13 & 2013-14 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 59. Now we will take up appeals No. IT(SS)162 & 150/Ind/2017 in the case of Shri Rajeev Sharma for Assessment Year 2008-09 to 2013-14. The assessee has raised following grounds; Assessment Year 2008-09 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case :- 1. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any of the grounds of appeal. Assessment Year 2011-12 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case :- 1. The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2. That the additions are illegal and bad in law as they are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on account of unaccounted cash deposit of Rs. 78,000/-.. 4. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 33,662/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Assessment Year 2012-13 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case :- 1. The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leted u/s 153A of the Act in view of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT (Central)-III V/s Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Delhi). 62. In the instant case also the facts remains same. Return of income for Assessment Year 2008-09 to 2011-12 stands filed as per the provisions of Section 139 of the Act. Date of search was 30.11.12. The last date for issuance of notice u/s 142 for Assessment Year 2011-12 was 30.9.2012 thus it remains undisputed that before the date of search due date for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act stood expired. Further from perusal of the assessment order for Assessment Year 2008-09 to 2011-12, we find that the additions have been made for cash deposit, undisclosed perquisites, deemed dividend, unaccounted transaction and unaccounted cash found. No live link have been established by the Ld.A.O for making these additions with any incriminating material found during the course of search. The additions have been made merely on the basis of details called for in the course of regular assessment proceedings. 63. We, therefore in the given facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the judgment of Hon'ble H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the assessee M/s.Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd are part of the regular salary transactions entered into ordinary process of business. The outstanding debit of Rs. 2,81,217/- in no way could be termed as a loan because there are regular transactions of monthly salary and payments against it and the balance at the close of the month in the year gets it changed. Debit balance of Rs. 2,82,217/- could not be categorized as loan to the assessee rather it is a balance of the current account between the company i.e. M/s. Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd and the assessee, relating to the salary payable and therefore no addition was called for u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Therefore Ground No.4 of the assessee for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed. 66. Now we take up Ground No.3 for Assessment Year 2013-14. Apropos Ground No.3 relates to unaccounted cash deposit of Rs. 3,99,000/-. As observed earlier this issue also needs to be set aside to the file of Ld.A.O for verification about the availability of cash in hand on the date of deposit of cash in bank after going through the cash flow statement filed at page 18-20 of the synopsis showing the cash withdrawal and cash deposited in Axis Bank and Indian Ov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... failed to make any correlation between assessee and the seized document. Therefore in our view alleged document is a dumb document on the basis of this no addition could be made. Therefore Ground No.4 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 is allowed and addition of Rs. 30,51,950/- is deleted. 71. Apropos Ground No.5 for the addition of Rs. 4,67,450/- on account of cash found during the course of search and treating it as unexplained cash found, brief facts are that the cash of Rs. 8,52,400/- was found at the residential premises of Shri Rajeev Sharma and Rs. 3,00,000/- found in the locker No.21 of Canara Bank. Out of these amount addition of Rs. 4,67,450/- has been sustained by Ld. CIT(A). Ld. Counsel for the assessee has requested to set aside the issue to the file of Ld.A.O to verify the cash balance on the date of search on the basis of cash flow statement filed at page 18-20 of the synopsis. Ld. Departmental Representative did not opposed. 72. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. It is contended that as on date of search cash balance with the assessee was Rs. 35,85,857/- which covers the alleged addition of Rs. 4,67,450/-. This facts needs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the grounds of appeal. Assessment Year 2011-12 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case :- 1. The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2 That the additions are illegal and bad in law as they are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on account of unaccounted cash deposit of Rs. 40,000/-. 4. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Assessment Year 2012-13 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case :- 1. The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2. That the additions are illegal and bad in law as they are not based on any incriminating material found du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re filed on 30.3.2010, 4.1.2011 and 5.3.2012 for Assessment Year 2009-10 to Assessment Year 2011-12 and due date for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was 30.9.2010, 30.9.2011 and 30.9.2012 for Assessment Year 2009-10 to 2011-12 respectively. The date of search was 30.11.2012. Therefore in view of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as held in the case of CIT (Central)-III V/s Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Delhi) all additions for Assessment Year 2009-10 to 2011-12 could have been made only if there is any incriminating material found during the course of search which have its nexus with the additions made. However from perusal of the grounds as well as assessment order we observe that additions have for unaccounted cash deposit, undisclosed receipt from Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd, undisclosed perquisite u/s 17(2)(iii) of the Act, undisclosed capital gains have its nexus from the details called during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 153A and there is no finding of Ld.A.O about the incriminating material found for these three assessment years. 76. We therefore taking the consistent view allow this common issue raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sue in the case of M/s Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd vide ITA (SS)No. 124 to 129/Ind/2017, ITA(SS) No.141 to 146/Ind/2017, ITA (SS) No.317/Ind/2017 & ITA(SS) No.342/Ind/2017 holding that the transaction carried out by M/s. Soumya Homes Pvt Ltd were at the fair market price and there no undue benefit given by the company to its Directors/employees in selling the properties vis-à-vis the rates charged with other customers. We therefore applying the decision as discussed in the preceding para delete the addition of Rs. 2,13,600/- by holding that no addition was called for towards perquisite u/s 17(2)(iii) of the Act for the flats purchased by the assessee on 29.3.2012. In the result ground No.5 is allowed. 80. Apropos Ground No.6 for the additions towards undisclosed capital gain at Rs. 6,57,820/-, at the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for non pressing this ground and therefore this ground is dismissed as not pressed and the addition for Rs. 6,57,820/- is confirmed. 81. Now we take up ground raised for Assessment Year 2013-14 Vide Appeal No.427/Ind/2017. Ground No.3 & 5 is raised against the addition for unaccounted cash deposit and unexplained cash at Rs. 70,000/-....