TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeals filed by them in different assessment years. Therefore, these are clubbed together for sake of brevity, convenience and adjudication. For the purpose of the order, the facts stated in the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 1916/AHD/2011 for A.Y. 1995-96 are adopted for the purpose of adjudication. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Baroda has grossly erred in law and in facts in holding that the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT by its order in I.T.A. No. 192/Ahd/1999 and 752/Ahd/1999 for the relevant year in deciding the appeal afresh do not entail jurisdiction to him. According to the Ld. CIT(A)-III, Baroda, the jurisdiction could be assumed only if the appellant's application was pending before the Settlement Commission. Since there was no application made by the appellant to the Settlement Commission, no valid and lawful jurisdiction could be exercised by him. The action of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding so is in defiance of the direction of the Hon'ble ITAT and that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeals afresh. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....above grounds. 4. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds of appeal herein above contained. 3. The issue raised by the assessee in first and second ground of appeal is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in holding that he had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue afresh in line with the directions of Hon'ble ITAT given in ITA No. 192/AHD/1999 and 752/AHD/1999 on the reasoning that the appellant had not filed any application before the settlement commission. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal decided by his predecessor will prevail. 4. At the outset, we note that similar issue has been decided by the Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Chandrakanta Jashbhai Patel vs ITO in ITA No. 1912/AHD/2011 vide order dated 22-12-2014 where it was observed that the Ld. CIT-A had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue afresh due to the reason that the appellant has not filed any application before the Settlement Commission. Therefore, there is no question of having any order of Settlement Commission. Accordingly the Ld. CIT-A was unable to follow the direction given by the ITAT. For the sake of better understanding the relevant finding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....premises of the assessee, MOPL and the directors of the companies who were common in majority, dated 23rd March, 1995. As a result of search various incriminating documents were found from the premises of Ashok C Patel which were depicting the fact that MOPL has received on money which was not recorded in the regular books of accounts. Likewise, there were certain incriminating documents showing the utilization of on money which were not recorded in the books of accounts. The year wise details of the on money stand as under: A.Y. Amount 1992-93 8,22,088 1993-94 31,67,270 1994-95 1,45,15,601 1995-96 1,28,37,963 3,13,42,924 6.4 The fact of receiving the on money was duly accepted by the directors of the company including the director namely Shri Ashok C Patel who is a common director in both the companies i.e. assessee as well as MOPL in a statement furnished under section 132(4) of the Act. 6.5 However, the assessee, with respect to on money received, contended during the assessment proceedings that it had not received any on money. Therefore, it had no control of whatsoever on the money received by MOPL. Furthermore, the on money was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the contention of the assessee for claiming the deduction of the expenditure incurred out of such on money by observing as under; a- That the assessee failed to furnish the details such as the name and addresses of the parties to whom the payments were made. Likewise, there was no evidence filed by the assessee that such expenses were incurred in connection with the construction activity. Furthermore, the expenditure relating to constructions have already been recorded in the regular books of accounts. b- That most of the expenses were incurred in cash in violation of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. c- That some of the expenditures were incurred out of such on money for unlawful activities which is against the public policy. d- That certain expenditures which were capital in nature such as payments in cash out of the on money to acquire the shares from the previous directors, repaid the deposits to the previous depositors. e- That certain payments were made in advance to suppliers and labour contractors which were subsequently taken back after making payments through cheque. f- That non-furnishing of details and pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss activities of the assessee as detailed under: i. That the assessee being contractor/developer has to account for income on progressive method after considering the amount received against the booking of the flats/units irrespective of the fact whether the project was completed or not in the year under consideration. But the assessee has shown nil income in the year under consideration. ii. There was on money received by the assessee which were not recorded in the books of accounts. Therefore, the books of accounts maintained by the assessee were not depicting the correct income. As such the books of accounts were not complete. iii. The DVO has valued the cost of the project up-to March 1996 at Rs. 10,79,97,700/- whereas the assessee has shown the project cost in the books of accounts at Rs. 8,63,98,852/- only. Similarly, the DVO has valued the cost of construction for the year under consideration at Rs. 3,41,14,353/- whereas the assessee has shown the cost of construction for the year under consideration at Rs. 2,71,34,604/- only. iv. The assessee has not provided the quantitative details for the purchase of materials. The assessee is also not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct for the expenses incurred in cash submitted that these expenses should be covered under the exceptions as provided under rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules. Accordingly, no disallowance of the expenses recorded in the seized documents which were incurred outside the books of accounts can be made under the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. 8.2 Without prejudice to the above, the assessee submitted that the receipt shown in the seized documents represents the business receipts. Against such receipts the assessee has incurred the expenses. Therefore, the entire amount cannot be treated as income. In this regard various decisions have been taken by the Hon'ble Court by determining the income on estimated basis i.e. 10% of such receipts. 8.3 The learned CIT (A) during the proceedings observed that during the survey operation dated 11th October, 1994, and search operation the income from the on money was disclosed in the hands of MOPL. The same was the position even during the assessment proceedings. Furthermore, the assessee has never disputed the fact that income from the unaccounted on money should be treated as its income. It was also observed that both the assessee and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear basis on the on money received by the MOPL in different assessment years. Thus, an amount of Rs. 25,67,593/- of Rs. 1,28,37,963/- determined and added to the total income of MOPL. 8.7 Regarding the unexplained payment of Rs. 42,12,425/- assessee submits that the said payments were made out of the on-money receipts as it was recorded on same set of seized papers. The assessee also submits the detailed explanations of these payments before the Ld. CIT-A. 8.8 The ld. CIT-A regarding the unexplained payment of Rs. 42.12 lacs noted that nothing has been brought on record that such payments were made other than out of the on-money receipts. Similarly, the date of receipts of on money and date of expenditure had not been recorded. Therefore cash flow statement could also not be possible to prepare. Thus the Ld. CIT-A, deleted the addition of unexplained payments/investment for the sum of Rs. 42,12,125/- made by the AO. 8.9 The assessee regarding the rejection of the accounts contended that there was no defect pointed out by the AO therein. Therefore, the books cannot be rejected. 8.10 The assessee regarding the accounted receipts submitted that it started its project in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 42,12,425). 10. The grounds of appeal of the Revenue in ITA number 1808/Ahd/2011 for A.Y. 1995-96 stand as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, t\ e id. CIT (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,28,37,963/- made on account of undisclosed 'on-money' receipts by holding that the income on 'on-money' has to be taxed in the hands of project consultant and booking agent, M/s.Madhav Organizers Pvt.Ltd. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, t\ e Id. CIT (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 42,12,125/- on account of unexplained payment without appreciating that the expenditure as recorded i i the seized material were unaccounted investment of the assessee company. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (Appeals) erred in restricting the addition of 25% of the receipts mace by rejecting the book results to 10% of the receipts. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or alter the aoove grounds as may be deemed necessary. 11. The learned AR before us filed from pages 1 to 823 and contended that the rate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....project consultant and the booking agent. As per the arrangement between the assessee and MOPL, whatever amount is collected by MOPL on the booking of the flat was to be transferred to the assessee. However, MOPL was collecting on money without recording the same in the books of accounts. This on money collected had direct nexus with the business activity of the assessee. Whatever on money was collected from the customers, all of them were buying the property in the project of the assessee. Thus, what is transpired is this that the transaction with respect to which the on money was collected was related to the flats/shops which were constructed by the assessee. Therefore, in our considered view, this collection of the on money was not possible without the business activity of the assessee. Accordingly, it seems to us the substance of the transaction if viewed on the parameters of risk and reward, the on money belongs to the assessee. It is for the reason that the entire risk for constructing the project was undertaken by the assessee. In the construction project, there is an investment of huge money which was invested by the assessee. There was no investment made by MOPL in the con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issue in whose hands the income has to be taxed. Hence, we direct that there cannot be any addition to the total income of the assessee on account of the receipt of on money discussed above. As such, such amount of on money is liable to be taxed in the hands of MOPL. 14.5 The next controversy (2nd question) arises for our adjudication whether the gross amount of on money received should be subject to tax without allowing the deduction of the expenditure recorded in the seized documents. It is a fact on records that on money was reflecting in the seized documents. Such seized document was the basis of making the addition of such on money. It is also a fact on record that there were expenditures incurred against the on money as evident from the same set of seized documents. In our considered view these documents should be read as a whole. Such seized documents cannot be used as the basis for making the addition without giving the deduction of the expenses appearing in the seized documents. We note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs S C Kothari reported in 82 ITR 794 held as under; "If the business is illegal neither the profits earned nor the losses incu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not recorded in the books of accounts like the expenses as discussed above. 14.6 The next controversy (3rd question) arises whether the income as reflecting in the on money can be determined based on some percentage basis. Admittedly, the money which have been treated on money is the business receipts. Therefore, the entire amount of on money cannot be treated as income. In this regard we note that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Vijay Protein Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 58 taxmann.com 44 where the Hon'ble court held as under: 8. We are broadly in agreement with the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as confirmed by the Tribunal. When the Assessing Officer had doubted the genuineness of the expenditure, he would require bringing to tax the profit element so avoided by the assessee. As noted, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) while limiting the additions, brought the assessee's declared gross profit ratio at the same rate as in the previous year which was even otherwise in tune with the percentage of the assessee's doubtful purchases. 14.7 The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court as discussed above are based on di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Meeti Investment and Consultancy P. Ltd ITA No. 1714/AHD/2010 wherein it was held as under; "We concur with the views of the Ld. CIT(A) that in the present case, the assessee was not a contractor but was a developer who awards contracts to different contractors for executing civil, electrical, plumbing work etc. Therefore, accounting standard in the present circumstances and facts of the case i.e. AS-7 cannot be made applicable. Accounting standard AS-9 which has been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) and has been discussed at pages 4-8 of his order is applicable in the present circumstances and facts of the case. Moreover, it has not been controverted by the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue that the assessee had awarded the contractors to various other contractors. Also it has not been controverted that there is no construction activity carried out by the assessee during the year and there was a dispute of the parties who had filed civil suit in Mumbai civil court. The assessee had received the advances which are duly reflected in the balance-sheet of the assessee. There is no certainty of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is also pertinent to note that there was a ground raised by the assessee in the memo of appeal by stating that the assessee is working in the capacity of mutual organization having no profit motive. Therefore, based on the principles of mutuality there cannot be any income in the hands of the assessee. However, at the time of hearing, we note that the learned AR has not made any argument on this issue. Accordingly, we are of the view that the same does not require any separate adjudication. Thus, the issue raised by the assessee becomes infructuous. Accordingly, we dismiss the same. 14.13 In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. Coming to ITA No. 1915/AHD/2011 an appeal by assessee for the AY 1994-95. 15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal; 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-! II, Baroda has grossly erred in law / and in facts in holding that the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT by its order in I.T.A. No. 988/Ahd/2001 and 1163/Ahd/2001 for the relevant year in deciding the appeal afresh do not entail jurisdiction to him. According to the Ld. CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounting employed and also the nature of the case the profit of the scheme is to be determined only on completion of the project. 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeals)-lll, Baroda has erred in law and in facts while holding that the appellant is engaged in the business of construction has further erred in estimating the net profit @ 10% of the total receipts determined at Rs. 2,93,00,000/-. This addition of Rs. 29,30,000/- deserves to be deleted. 5. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, delete or substitute to any of the grounds of appeal herein above contained. The Ld. CIT(A) may please be directed to adjudicate and decide the above grounds. 4. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds of appeal herein above contained. 16. The issue raised by the assessee in the first and second ground of appeal is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in holding that he had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue afresh in line with the directions of Hon'ble ITAT given in ITA No. 988/AHD/2001 and 1163/AHD/2001 on reasoning that the appellant had not filed any application before the settlement commission. Accordingly the grounds of appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'ble ITAT and that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeals afresh. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IlI, Baroda has further erred in law and in facts in holding that the grounds of appeal as decided by his predecessor in Appeal No. CAB/IV-94/98-99 survive and that he was not required to adjudicate the appeals afresh for want of lawful jurisdiction. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Baroda has erred in law and in facts in not deciding the following grounds of appeal as directed by the Hon'ble Tribunal: 1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) IV, Baroda has erred in law and in facts in upholding the action of the ACIT, Central 2, Baroda in disregarding the existence of various legally enforceable agreement with Madhav Organisers Pvt. Ltd., the project consultant and booking agent while misinterpreting the modus operandi of the schemed of the Avishkar Project and therefore it deserves to be held that the appellant's modus operandi of the scheme is to be accepted and it's to be held that the status of the appellant being that of a mutual society no tax can be levied. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals)-IV, Baroda has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 23. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 3 and its sub grounds numbers 1 to 5 is that the learned CIT (A) erred in not appreciating the status of the assessee like a mutual benefit society and estimating the net profit of Rs. 10,50,935/- being 10% of the total receipts. 24. At the outset we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the year under consideration is identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1916/AHD/2011 for the assessment year 1995-96. Therefore, the finding given in ITA no. 1916/AHD/2011 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 1993-94. The appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 1995-96 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 14 of this order by allowing the appeal of the assessee in its favour in part. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. 24.1 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Coming to ITA No. 1913/AHD/2011 an appeal by assessee for the AY 1992-93. 25. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal; 1. The L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated / quantified and taxed the same can be recognized only when the project is completed and therefore it deserves to be held that considering the method of accounting employed and also the nature of the case the profit of the scheme is to be determined only on completion of the project. 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeals)-IV, Baroda has erred in law and in facts while holding that the appellant is engaged in the business of construction has farther erred in estimating the net profit @ 10% of the total receipts determined at Rs. 22,86,730/-. The addition of Rs. 2,28,673/- deserves to be deleted. 5. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, delete or substitute to any of the grounds of appeal herein above contained. The Ld. CIT(A) may please be directed to adjudicate and decide the above grounds. 4. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds of appeal herein above contained. 26. The issue raised by the assessee in first and second ground of appeal is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in holding that he had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue afresh in line with the directions of Hon'ble ITAT given in ITA No. 190/AH....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unexplained pt ak cash loan. (iv) in deleting addition of Rs. 37,48,700/- on account of unexplained investment/expenditure. (v) in deleting addition of Rs. 80,62,470/- made on account of difference in cost of construction determined by the Valuation Officer and the cost recorded in the books of account. 2. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary. 31. The issue raised in ground No. (i), (ii) and (iv) of appeal by the Revenue is interconnected. Therefore, we have clubbed them together. The issue raised is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in restricting the addition up-to Rs. 29.30 lacs being 10% of gross receipts and deleting the addition of unaccounted on money and unexplained investment/ expenditure. 32. At the outset we note that, the issue raised by the Revenue is identical to the issue raised by it in ITA No. 1808/AHD/2011 for A.Y. 1995-96. Therefore, the finding given in ITA No. 1808/AHD/2011 for AY 1995-96 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 1994-95. The appeal of the Revenue has already been adjudicated along with the appeal of M/s Kotel Properties Private Limit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was pleased to delete the same for the reasons as discussed above. 40. First of all, the question that arises for adjudication whether the loan amount represents the income of the assessee. The answer stands in negative. The loan cannot be treated as income. However, there is a presumption under section 68 of the Act which states that if any cash that is found in the books of accounts which has not been explained by the assessee with respect to the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction has to be treated as unexplained cash credit. The same shall be presumed as unexplained cash credit under section 68 and the same will be liable to be taxed. However, it is a fact on record that the impugned amount of interest as well as the amount of loan computed by the AO based on such interest, was not recorded in the regular books of accounts. Therefore, in our considered view the impugned amount of loan not recorded in the regular books of accounts cannot attract the provisions of section 68 of the Act. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the learned CIT (A). Accordingly, we uphold the same. Likewise, on the same reasoning the income added by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the AO. 44. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 45. Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 46. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion, we note that the AO has already made addition of different types to the total income of the assessee particularly on account of on money involved in the project and expenditures incurred in cash on the project. Thus, there cannot be any further addition based on the valuation report as discussed above. If it is done so, it would lead to the double addition to the total income of the assessee which is not desirable under the provisions of the Act. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the learned CIT (A). Accordingly, we uphold the same. Likewise, on the same reasoning the income added by the AO on protective basis in the hands of MOPL is also liable to be deleted. Hence the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 46.1 In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Coming to ITA No. 1920/AHD/2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f booking. This action of the ACIT. Central Circle 2. Baroda being erroneous requires to be held as incorrect. 3. The Ld C/T (Appeals) IV, Baroda has erred in law and in facts in disregarding that for tax purposes the treatment given to recorded receipts only is to be given to unaccounted receipts also and accordingly if the recorded receipt are to be taxed in the year of completion the unrecorded receipts are also required to be taxed in the same year. 4. The Ld C/T (Appeals) IV, Baroda has erred in law and in facts in holding that the addition of Rs. 25,67,593/- being 20% of on money receipts of Rs. 1,28,37,963/~ is to be taxed in the hands of the appellant in the year under consideration completely disregarding the fact that the various contractual obligations out of such receipts and they ought to be allowed and considering this the surplus out of such receipts can be taxed only when the project, which it was managing as consultant and agent, is complete. 5. The Ld C/T (Appeals), Baroda has erred in law and in facts that of the on money as determined above the appellant has earned an income of Rs. 25,67,593/- being 20% of the total on money while disr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar 1995-96 wherein the grounds of appeal of the assessee were partly allowed. For the detailed discussion, please refer the relevant paragraph No. 14 of this order. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 52. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 3 and its sub ground No. 6 is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 82,060/- on account of unexplained cash in hand. 53. During the search operation cash of Rs. 82,060/- was found. Out of which cash of Rs. 75,000/- was seized. The AO in the absence of necessary information such as cash flow statement added the same of Rs. 82,060/- to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. 54. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT-A who also confirmed the addition made by the AO. 55. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT-A the assessee is in appeal before us. 56. The learned AR before us submitted that the impugned cash has already been considered as part of unaccounted receipts. Therefore, the same cannot be added to the total income of the assessee. 57. On the contrary, the learned DR before us vehemently supported the or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Valuation Officer and the cost recorded in the books of account. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary. Relief claimed in appeal The order of the CIT(A) on the issues raised in the aforesaid grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 61. The 1st issue raised by the Revenue in ground No. 1 and its sub grounds number (i) is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in deleting the addition Rs. 1,45,90,601/- on account of on money receipts. 62. At the outset we note that, the issue raised by the Revenue has already been adjudicated along with the appeal of M/s Kotel Properties Private Limited bearing ITA No. 1916/AHD/2011 for the assessment year 1995-96 wherein the ground of appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. For the detailed discussion, please refer the relevant paragraph number 14 of this order. Thus, the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 63. The next issue raised by the Revenue in ground No. 1 and its sub grounds number (ii) is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 37,55,020/- on account of cash loan. 64. At the outset we note tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is dismissed. Coming to ITA No. 1776/AHD/2011 an appeal by the Revenue for the AY 1995-96. 72. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal; 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the order of the erstwhile CIT(A) wherein the ld.CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts. (i) in partially deleting the addition of Rs.1,02,70,370/- on account of 'on money' receipts. (ii) In deleting the addition of Rs.56,48,087/- on account of net profit on unaccounted receipts. (iii) in deleting the addition of Rs.42,12,425/- on account of unexplained payment. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary. Relief claimed in appeal The order of the CIT(A) on the issues raised in the aforesaid grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 73. The 1st issue raised by the Revenue in ground No. 1 and its sub grounds number (i) is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,02,70,370.00 representing on money receipts. 74. At the outset we note that, the issue raised by the Revenue has ....