TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 603
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nst whom a warrant of search was issued. Accordingly, notice 153A was issued and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act was passed accepting the returned income declared by the assesse. 3. Thereafter, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act, after recording the reasons for reopening. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act and order dated 28.12.2018 was passed determining the total income at Rs. 123,60,510/- Ld Pr CIT observed that the above order did not take cognizance of the documents found in the Swastik Group wherein cash loans of Rs. 6,13,89,930/- by the assesse was found to have been given to Swastik Group @ 1.50% interest p.a. He observed that this information was available at the time of order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147. After considering the submissions of the assesse, he held that the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue insofar that no inquiry was conducted to ascertain the correct income of the assesse in this assessment year. 4. Aggrieved the assesse preferred an appeal before us with the delay of 62 days and filed an affidavit with the reasons for filing the appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, the notice under section 263 is issued as per the Pr CIT, the order of the Assessing Officer dated 28.12.2018 framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is erroneous inasmuch as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on following two counts for the reason that cognizance of incriminating documents seized in the case of Swastik Group was not taken into consideration while passing the said order - (a) as regards advancing a cash loan of Rs 6,13,89,930 at an interest of 1.50% p.a. and (b) investment of Rs 1.35 crores for the purchase of land in Vashind 8. With regard to above, he submitted, the assessee is an individual earning income from salary, house property, business/profession, capital gains and other sources. Return of income for the year under consideration was filed under section 139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs 13,60,510. Thereafter, return was processed 143(1) of the Act and the assessment was not selected for scrutiny. 9. He submitted, subsequently, Search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on Cosmos Group of cases on 24.09.2014. The assessee's residential premise was also covere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- in cash for the Purchase of said Land. In the said statement, it is also stated that our client has given a cheque amount of Rs.6,25,00,000/- for the Purchase of the said Land. 2.2) In this respect, we would like to state that during the said Assessment Year i.e. A.Y. 2013-14 our client has not entered into any transaction for Purchase of the said land i.e. Land at Vashind for which your goodself has alleged that our client has paid a sum of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- in cash and a cheque amount of Rs. 6,25,00,000/- 2.3) As regards the reliance on the statement of Shri Deepak Shah in the said show cause notice is concerned, it is not clear as under what context or circumstances such statement was given by him. 2.4) Further, we have already submitted to your goodself the copy of Bank Statements and the Bank Book in respect of all the Bank accounts of our client during the course of assessment proceedings. On perusal of such Bank Statements and Bank Book your goodself would observe that during the year under consideration i.e. AY. 2013-2024. our client has not paid any amount by way of cheque amounting to Rs.0,25,00,000/- as alleged by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss associates for managing and overlooking certain aspects of this business. If such employees and associated acquire the knowledge of the fact that were are generating and are in possession of huge cash at times or certain times of the period, it may create embezzlement problems for the group. It is also pertinent to state that this may create security problems for the partners/directors and their family members. In order to take care of this we have decided to keep the accounts of such cash as cash loans and maintained the details of the same in such manner. Hence such accounts of unaccounted cash are maintained in this format. This cash represents the unaccounted income of the concerns /persons of the Swastik Group. Therefore on this issue I am offering /declaring this entire amount shown as cash loans as the unaccounted income of the various concerns/ persons of Swastik Group. Thus, on this account I am declaring amount of Rs. 72,17,23,391/- in the hands of different concerns/persons of Swastik Group for different financial years . The distribution of such income in the hands of different concerns/persons for different financial years shall be submitted within a week./1 say. an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5) Thus it is very clear from the above :- 5.1) That our client has not entered into any financial transactions- more so as cash loans for the said Assessment Year i/e/ AY 2014-15 with Swastik Group as alleged by your goodself in the said Show Cause Notice . 5.2 The said Swastik Group has used our client name against the said cash loan entries as per the annexed statement to the Sow cause to give perfect resemblance to the cash amounts belonging to Swastik Group. 5.3) The said Swastik Group have admitted a sum of Rs. 72,17,23,391/- as their undisclosed income on account of unaccounted cash loans as undisclosed income of Swastik group. 6) In view of the above submission we would like to state that our client has not made any cash payments for acquisition of land as stated by your goodself in the said show cause notice for A.Y. 2013-14 and /or has not given any cash loans as stated by your goodself in the said show cause notice for AY 2014-15 which should be treated as undisclosed income of our client for the respective Assessment Years" 12. Ld. AR submitted, thereafter the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order dated 26.12.2016 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s carried out on the Cosmos Group of cases on 24.09.2014. The assessee's residential premises was covered in the search operations on the basis of the warrant issued in the name of the "M/s. Cosmos Prime Project Limited and other entities/persons". There was no seizure of any relevant or incriminating document/ material relating to the assessee and no Panchnama was drawn in assessee's specific name. Consequential to aforesaid search action, notices under section 153A of the Act dated 26.08.2016 were served on 06.09.2016 on the assessee for A.Y.2009-10 to AY 2014-15 and returns of income were filed. 20. we observe that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was served with the show cause notice dated 30.11.2016 by the AO requiring him to explain the nature and source of funds utilized for executing the land deal and providing loan to the third party, details of which are as under: - (a) One of the seized documents showed that one Pradeep Chopra had made cash payment to Swastik Group for purchase of land at Vashind for total consideration of Rs. 18.37 crore. Out of total consideration of Rs. 18.37 crore a sum of Rs. 1.35 crore was paid in cash and a sum o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y DCIT CC-2, Thane and the information available on record the assessee was show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 1.35 crores should not be added to his total income on account of unexplained investment. The assessee vide letter dated 20.12.2016 submitted his reply which is carefully perused and placed on record, however the same is not acceptable. The assessee had stated that there is no data in AIR information about sale of land." 23. Aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing Officer, an appeal was filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) on 27.01.2017 against the addition of Rs 1,35,00,000. 24. Before us, Ld. AR took us through the remand report of the AO where he states that the Assessing Officer, Thane, in the case of M/s. Viva Swastik Estate has agreed that the amount of Rs..1,10,00,000 allegedly received from Pradeep Chopra in AY 2011-12 was part of receipt of Rs..1,35,00,000 which the same amount has been considered in the case of the assessee in AY 2013-14. We observe that the above additions were challenged before the Ld.CIT(A) in both the Assessment Years and Ld.CIT(A) deleted the same. 25. The Ld.AR then as a second proposition against the impugned order of ....