TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 212
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as Under:- "1. The present Miscellaneous Application is being filed upon directions of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2, Mumbai. The application is being filed in relation to the following orders:- (a) ITAT Order dated 10.07.2019 in ITA No. 688/Mum/2018 and Cross Objection No.71/Mum/2019 (b) Corrigendum order dated 09.10.2019 in ITA No. 688/Mum/2018 and Cross Objection No.71/Mum/2019. 2. The brief background of facts is submitted as under:- (i) The scrutiny of the assessee's case for A.Y. 2015-16 was completed u/s 143(3), dated 30.12.2016 by making an addition of Rs. 8.70 crores as unexplained cash receipts being amounts received by assessee from Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... years is in the range of 11.6% to 15.40%, He observed that this gross profit for the last 3 years should be taken as basis for permitting the addition in respect of the sum of 8.70 crores and accordingly, adopted the rate of 16% as gross profit for the year under consideration and applied the sum of Rs. 8.70 crores and made an addition ofRs. 1,39,20,000/- thereon. " (v). It is also pertinent to refer to para 4 of the ITAT's order dated 10.07.2019 which is reproduced as under:- "4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us ". (vi) In the background of the above observations, the Hon'ble ITAT has concluded in para 5.2 and para 6 as under :- "5.2 Accordingly, we have no hesitation in directing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dded to the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee had sufficient unaccounted cash balance in its hands to make such payment to Himmatbhai Senghani. The Hon'ble ITAT in its order took note of the aforesaid observation by stating that - ''we find in para 8.6 reproduced (supra) that the Assessing Officer of Runwal Developers Pvt.Ltd. had given a categorical finding that Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd. had indeed made unaccounted cash payment of Rs. 8.70 crores to the assessee. Hence, the order of the department itself explains the source of Rs. 8.70 crores for the assessee in respect of labour payments thereon by the assessee. Hence, there cannot be any addition that could be made in the hands of the assessee i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turnover for him and hence the Ld.CIT(A) had rightly estimated unaccounted profit of 16% thereon and directed an addition of Rs. 1,39,20,000/- to be made in computing his total income. Therefore, by allowing the cross appeal of the assessee and deleting the addition of Rs. 1,39,20,000/-, without discussing any reasons for disagreeing with the CIT(A), the order of the Hon'ble ITAT is ex-facie erroneous. 7. Further, it is found that M/s. Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd. has not offered the entire amount of on-money as its unaccounted income. Further, in the case of the company, the addition made by the AO & confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) has been contested by M/s. Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd. and the same is pending before Hon'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es was brought down to Rs. 1,39,20,000/- by the ld. CIT(A) where the ld. CIT(A) held that only the profit element embedded in such transaction could be brought to tax. 4. Aggrieved, the revenue had preferred an appeal for restoration of the original addition of Rs. 8.70 Crores and assessee had preferred cross objection before us challenging the addition of Rs. 1,39,20,000/-. Hence, the entire addition of Rs. 8.70 Crores was in dispute before this Tribunal effectively. We find that main grievance of the revenue was that the Runwal Developers Pvt. Ltd., had not offered Rs. 8.70 Crores in its hands and that the Tribunal appeal was pending in their case while deciding the appeal by this Tribunal in the case of the assessee herein. We find th....