TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1733
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d show that on 20,02,2007, a survey u/s 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] was carried out in the premises of the assessee at 9, K.G. Marg, New Delhi and also at Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana. During the survey proceedings at Kundli premises, three loose papers were found from the accounts office, which were subsequently impounded. These loose papers revealed the broker-wise dues to be recovered by the assessee on 12.01.2005 totalling to Rs. 1,46,55,94,222/-. The three loose impounded papers are as under: First page a.k. khattar (huf) '29,571,56 alfa associates 154,135,0 alfa associates-2 80,945,10 aman mehra 14,301,24 amarieet sinqh qiani 27,682,35 amarieet sinqh qiani 27,682,35 arun khera 12,788,36 ascent properties 15,008,25 ascent properties-ii 7,218,375 ashwani iain & vikash jain 2,952,965 atul traders/covishvanath estates 18,709,29 bankey bihari estates 23,244,72 bhatia associates 37,648,41 bhatia associates 17,321,21 capital property 10,741,00 dnt 17,200,25 fair deal properties (r) 31,281,67 qalaxy associates 69,543,93 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... naqpal 10.540,267 laxmi assoa'ates 10.030,500 m.s. dua 15,041,365 praveen tain and company ltd. 13.074,916 praveen jain and company ltd. 13,074,916 p.p. estates 11.230,994 praveen arora 22,516,972 raja sinqh 21.628,362 rajesh mittal 17.177,910 ref: Ravinder 57.716,163 Staff selection properties 19.288,141 shrabak & associates 13.554,475 shri aditya estate / rakesh Bhardwaj 39.564,686 shubam aqena'es 10.991,375 surendra buildtech 68.249,943 surendra 14,992,600 swastik estate 17.797,655 taneia & co. p. ltd. 15.784,131 tirupati marketinq 13.087,600 uttam property 13.295,250 vardhman assc. -2 27,623,654 vardhman associates pvt. 76,724,703 vijay kumar & co. 17,400,000 Total 1,465,594,222 vardhman assc.-2 27,623,654 vardhman associates pvt. 76,724,703 vijay kumar {k co. 17,400,000 Total 1,465,594,222 5. The assessee was asked to explain the entries in the loose sheets with its books of account. 6. In its reply, the assessee admitted that the loose papers contained details of tentative dues on 12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the impounded documents and there is no evidence to prove that this is inadvertently printed as 12.01.2005 on our record even though the assessee submits that these are recorded in the books of M/s Intime Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (now known as M/s TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) in the Assessment Year 2006-07. This issue would be looked into separately at the time of submitting the report for M/s Intime Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (now known as M/s. TDI Infrastructure pvt. Ltd. ) in the assessment year 2006-07. This issue would be looked into separately at the time of submitting the report for M./s. Intime Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (now known as M/s. TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) for A.Y. 2005-06." 11. After considering the report of the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) was convinced that the seized documents, on the basis of which the addition has been made, belong to the sister concern of the assessee i.e. M/s Intime Promoters Pvt Ltd. and, accordingly, deleted the addition in the hands of M/s Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. 12. Since the substantive addition was deleted, the protective addition made in the hands of the M/s Intime Promoters Pvt Ltd became substantive. 13. In the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....05-06. During remand report proceedings the assessee submitted that the actual amount is Rs. 142,48,36,949/- and not Rs. 146.55.94.222/-. On perusal of the impounded documents, it is clearly seen that the following entries have been made twice. S. Name of the brokers Amount 1. Amarjeet Singh Giani 27682357/- 2. Praveen Jain & Co. Ltd. 13074916/- 40757273/- (Rs. 146,55,94,222/- - 4,07,57,273/- = Rs. 142,48,36,949/-) While going through books of accounts produced by the assessee, it is also seen that the assessee company has received the amount in the following financial years:- Amount recovered Amount received 31.3.2006 629867909/- 31.3.2007 649922177/- 31.3.2008 26054544/- 31.3.2009 19429004 31.3.2010 7146596/- 31.3.2011 7483517/- 31.3.2012 1345581/- 31.3.2013 4641485/- Current Year 95632/- Total 1345986447/- Pending 78850502/- Gross Total 142,48,36,949/- Yours faithfully, Sd (Mahender Singh Badgujar) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-18, New Delhi" 14. After considering the remand repo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the CIT(A), it was strongly contended that during the year under consideration, the assessee has not received any amount from M/s Rangoli Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. On the contrary, the said company is debtor of the assessee. In respect of M/s Epic Developers Pvt Ltd, the assessee brought to the notice of the CIT(A) that it has filed bank statement etc, during the assessment proceedings itself to explain the genuineness of the transaction, identity and credit worthiness of the lender. But the same has not been considered by the Assessing Officer. 22. In this respect, the CIT(A) called for remand report. The office letter of the CIT(A) reads as under: "The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle -18, Jhandewalan Ext., New Delhi. Sub:- Appeal Nos. 573/2009-10 in the case of Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. for the Assessment year 2005-06- Reg.- The appeal proceedings in this case are in progress and it is seen that one of the addition relates to the amount received from Rangoli Buildtech P. Ltd. and Epic Developers P. Ltd. of Rs. 20 crore under section 68. During the course of appellate proceedings the appellant has stated that from R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 8.11.2013 for asking the necessary information. In response to that notice, the company has filed the information i.e. copy of bank statement, return of income, balance sheet and profit and loss account on 29.11.2013. The return of Income filed by the company is Rs. Nil. The company is also not showing any business. Therefore, source of investment by; M/s Epic Developers Pvt. Ltd. is not explained and hence the creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction is not proved. So far as credit of Rs. 10 cr. from M/s Rangoli Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, it is seen from the bank statement filed by the assessee company during remand report proceedings that the following payments have been made and received in the financial year under consideration: - S.No Date Debit credit 1. 13.01.2005 8,50,00,000 2. 28.01.2005 5,00,00,000 3. 08.02.2005 5,00,00,000 4. 11.03.2005 61,00,000 5. 19.03.2005 1,80,00,000 6. 23.03.2005 80,00,000 7. 24.03.2005 30,00,000 8. 28.03.2005 40,00,000 9. 29.03.2005 1,35,00,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nue that the CIT(A) has admitted some additional evidences. The ld. AR stated that no additional evidence was filed by the assessee. Whatever evidences were furnished before the CIT(A) were very much available with the Assessing Officer and since the Assessing Officer had not considered those evidences, the CIT(A) had called for remand report and has decided the issue after considering the remand report of the Assessing Officer. The ld. AR supported the findings of the CIT(A). 28. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below as well as the rival contentions. No doubt, the initial onus is upon the assessee to explain the credit transaction in its books of account in the light of provisions of section 68 of the Act. However, this burden of proof is not permanent but keeps oscillating, meaning thereby, that once the initial burden has been discharged by the assessee, the burden shifts upon the revenue to make further enquiry. The letter written by the CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer, which is exhibited elsewhere, clearly shows that the CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to make necessary enquiry from the two creditors. 29. The remand rep....