AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 334
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,130/- as against total income of Rs. 38,130/- returned by the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3 a) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 1,97,95,000/- by treating the share application money received as unexplained cash credits under the facts of the case. b) Without prejudice the authorities below erred in treating the amounts refunded to Mr. Ameet Saini of Rs. 2,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. a) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the appellant had discharged the onus cast on it by the Act in providing all the details as regards to the share applicants and thus the action of the authorities below in treating the impugned amount as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act is improper and unwarranted under the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 68 as it stood for the impugned assessment year did not require the appellant to prove the source of source of the share applications and hence the orders passed are bad in law and needs to be set aside ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in law and consequent assessment under section 153A is null and void-ab-initio on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs. Ajith Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. c) The learned authorities below have not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of search under section 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Act, its execution and its completion in accordance with law to render the proceedings valid and to assume jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the Act. d) The authorities below failed to appreciate that a valid search is a sine qua non for making a valid assessment under section 153A of the Act on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs. Ajit Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. e) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the intention of the amendment to Section 132(1) of the Act was to maintain confidentiality of the source of information and identity of the informer and not to ignore the procedures to be followed to conduct a valid search under the facts and circumstances of the case. f) The learned CIT(A) furt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 2. The appellant denies itself liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs. 3,54,81,990/- as against total income Rs. 4,81,990/- returned by the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 3,50,00,000/- by treating the share application money received as unexplained cash credits under the facts of the case. 4. a) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the appellant had discharged the onus cast on it by the Act in providing all the details as regards to the share applicants and thus the action of the authorities below in treating the impugned amount as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act is improper and unwarranted under the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 68 as it stood for the impugned assessment year did not require the appellant to prove the source of source of the share applications and hence the orders passed are bad in la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... action under section 132(2) is bad in law and consequent assessment under section 153A is null and void-ab-initio on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs. Ajith Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. c) The learned authorities below have not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of search under section 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Act, its execution and its completion in accordance with law to render the proceedings valid and to assume jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the Act. d) The authorities below failed to appreciate that a valid search is a sine qua non for making a valid assessment under section 153A of the Act on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs. Ajit Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. e) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the intention of the amendment to Section 132(1) of the Act was to maintain confidentiality of the source of information and identity of the informer and not to ignore the procedures to be followed to conduct a valid search under the facts and circumstances of the case.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ities below in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 2. The appellant denies itself liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs. 6,41,49,100/- as against total income Rs. 2,49,100/- returned by the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 6,39,00,000/- by treating the share application money received as unexplained cash credits under the facts of the case. 4. a) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the appellant had discharged the onus cast on it by the Act in providing all the details as regards to the share applicants and thus the action of the authorities below in treating the impugned amount as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act is improper and unwarranted under the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 68 as it stood for the impugned assessment year did not require the appellant to prove the source of source of the share applications and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the suspicion and therefore, the action under section 132(2) is bad in law and consequent assessment under section 153A is null and void-ab-initio on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs. Ajith Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. c) The learned authorities below have not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of search under section 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Act, its execution and its completion in accordance with law to render the proceedings valid and to assume jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the Act. d) The authorities below failed to appreciate that a valid search is a sine qua non for making a valid assessment under section 153A of the Act on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs. Ajit Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. e) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the intention of the amendment to Section 132(1) of the Act was to maintain confidentiality of the source of information and identity of the informer and not to ignore the procedures to be followed to conduct a valid search under the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he orders of the authorities below in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 2. The appellant denies itself liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs. 10,31,55,900/- as against total income Rs. 6,55,900/- returned by the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. a) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 10,25,00,000/- by treating share application money received as unexplained cash credits under the facts of the case. b) Without prejudice the authorities below erred in treating the amounts refunded of Rs. 6,80,20,000/- as unexplained cash credits based on the facts of the case. 4. a) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the appellant had discharged the onus cast on it by the Act in providing all the details as regards to the share applicants and thus the action of the authorities below in treating the impugned amount as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act is improper and unwarranted under the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The authorities ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ultra vires the provisions of section 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Act; b) That the search is conducted not on the basis of any prior information or material inducing any belief but purely on the suspicion and therefore, the action under section 132(2) is bad in law and consequent assessment under section 153A is null and void-ab-initio on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs. Ajith Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. c) The learned authorities below have not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of search under section 132(1)(a); (b) & (c) of the Act, its execution and its completion in accordance with law to render the proceedings valid and to assume jurisdiction to make an assessment under section 153A of the Act. d) The authorities below failed to appreciate that a valid search is a sine qua non for making a valid assessment under section 153A of the Act on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs. Ajit Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. e) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the intention of the amendment to Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity. ITA No.1623/Bang/2018 1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 2. The appellant denies itself liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs. 11,82,45,290/- as against total income Rs. 8,43,030/- returned by the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. a) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 10,39,00,000/- by treating the share application money received as unexplained cash credit under the facts of the case. b) Without prejudice the authorities below erred in treating the amounts refunded of Rs. 9,00,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits based on the facts of the case. 4. a) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the appellant had discharged the onus cast on it by the Act in providing all the details as regards the share applicants and thus the action of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned CIT(A) erred in: a) confirming the additions of Rs. 11,76,380/- being 449 grams of gold as unexplained investments under the facts of the case. b) confirming the additions of Rs. 66,22,780/- by treating the purchases of 2,154.490 grams made from M/s. Sparkle Jewellery as bogus purchases under the facts of the case. c) confirming the additions of Rs. 23,03,100/- by treating the personal. silver articles of the directors of the appellant company as unexplained investment in the hands of the appellant under the facts of the case. d) confirming the said additions without giving any specific finding with respect to the submissions made by the appellant and therefore the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law and needs to be set aside on the facts of the case. 11. a) Without prejudice, the amounts added are wrong and requires to be made as Nil on the facts of the case. b) Without prejudice, the additions made are highly excessive and needs to be substantially reduced on the facts of the case. 12. a) The authorities below erred in treating the cash seized of Rs. 34,00,000/- as unexplained money on the facts of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which this claim of the assessee can be examined that relevant documents were although submitted by the assessee before the AO but the same were not examined by the AO properly and this claim of the assessee can also be examined that copy of investigation reports were not provided to the assessee etc. He submitted that similar grounds are there in all the years which are before the Tribunal i.e., Assessment Year 2007-08 and Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 although the ground No. may defer. He also submitted that in Assessment Year 2013-14, there are certain other grounds such as addition made by the AO of Rs. 11,76,380/- being 449 grams of gold added by the AO by alleging that the same is unexplained investment of the assessee and the addition of Rs. 66,22,780/- made by the AO by treating the purchases of 2154.490 grams of gold made from M/s. Sparkle Jewellery as bogus purchases and similarly the assessee is also objecting to the addition of Rs. 23,03,100/- made by the AO by treating the personal silver articles of the Director of the assessee company as unexplained investment of the assessee company and the assessee is also objecting to the addition made by the AO of Rs. 34 l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e issued by Reserve Bank of India is available on various pages of Paper Book i.e. issued to M/s. Dabriwal Investment and Finance Pvt. Ltd. on page No. 1415, issued to M/s. IRIS Commercial Pvt. Ltd. on page No. 1456, issued to M/s. Jaishree Ram Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. on page No. 1503, issued to M/s. Lyton Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. On Page No.1598, issued to M/s. Macro Leafin Pvt. Ltd. on page No. 1649, issued to M/s. Midpoint Marketing Pvt. Ltd. on page No.1705 and issued to M/s. Stupendors Traders Pvt. Ltd. On page 1768. We also find that confirmation of at least 4 investors is available in the Paper Book being of M/s. Alpha Sales Pvt. Ltd. on page 787, M/s. Jeevandarshi Marketing on page Nos.789 to 790, of M/s. Shivanand Vanijya on page 326 and of M/s. Motcab Finance on page No.328. Bank statements of at least 9 investors are also available in Paper Book of M/s. Alpha Sales Pvt. Ltd. on page 788, of Amit Goods & Suppliers Pvt Ltd. on page No.336, of Anmol Commerce Pvt Ltd. on page No.796, of Apsara Fintrade Pvt Ltd, on page No.334, of Cube Trafin Pvt Ltd. on page No.338, of Dabriwal Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. on page No.342, of Iris Commercials Pvt Ltd, on page No.340, of Jalsagar Deal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the AO to provide copy of Investigation Wing reports and statements of MD of the assessee or any other person which is being used by the AO against the assessee because without getting the copy of the same, the assessee cannot file proper reply. We also direct the AO to provide to the assessee an opportunity to cross examine a person whose statement is being used by the AO against the assessee and the assessee wants to cross examine him. In view of this discussion, we do not make any comment on any of the issues on merit or technical issue involved in these five appeals and we hold that all the issues are open before the AO which he should decide as per law in line with above discussion by way of a speaking and reasoned order after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. ============= Document 1 Sl. No. 1 Particulars Page No. Ref in Appeal Memo Page No. Ref. in Paper Book Copy of Investigation W....