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 
2022 (10) TMI 655
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eals are common, therefore all the appeals were taken up together for the hearing and being disposed of by way of a consolidated order for the sake of brevity and convenience. 3. At the outset, both the Learned Representative of the Parties have stated that the ITA No.1127/Del/2021 in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. may be taken as a lead case for factual matrix as majority of the issues involved in this appeal would be common to other appeals also. We therefore take up ITA No.1127/Del/2021 (arising out of the order of Ld.CIT(A) Kanpur-4 dated 12.08.2021) for A.Y.2016-17 in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. as a lead case. 4. The facts in brief as culled out from the material on records are that the Assessee is a company which is incorporated with the object of doing the business in construction of building as well as sale and purchase of land. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act, 1961 (in short "The Act") was conducted on 10.11.2017 at the premises of the Shri Rajeshwar Singh Yadav and other group of cases. It is recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) that during the course of search operation, certain incriminating documents/material belonging t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....since no incriminating material/evidence/assets belonging to/relating to the appellant suggesting undisclosed income/investment were found in the course of search under section 132 at the premises of Shri Rajeshwar Singh Yadav, leave alone such material not being handed over to the AO of the appellant and consequently illegal satisfaction note was recorded by the AO of the appellant. 1.3 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing that (i) the invoices for purchase of construction material incurred by the appellant towards construction of property at Noida, which was duly recorded and disclosed in the books of account, and (ii) detail of share capital received from M/s. Inspire 2 Aspire Business Solutions Pvt. Limited, constituted incriminating material within the meaning of section 153C of the Act, merely because the value of such construction expenses was determined by the DVO, on a subsequent reference made by DDIT(Inv.), at a higher value and share capital was deemed as unexplained cash credit, for which no adverse material was available, both at the time of search as also post search investigation, as well as assessment proceedings. 2. That the CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and in law in observing that the DVO had adopted the appropriate method to determine the fair market value of the property and adopting CPWD rates for property situated in Noida, which was near to Delhi whereas PWD rates was not appropriate which was meant for entire state of UP. 8. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.3,00,00,000/- made by the AO with respect to Rs. 1,50,00,000 crores each received from the share applicants, viz., Inspire 2 Aspire Business Solutions Pvt. Limited and M/s. Incredible India Pvt. Limited and deemed as unexplained cash credit under section 68, merely on the basis of the statement by the Director of the aforesaid companies, without any further enquiries or providing the applicant with an opportunity to cross-examine the said Director. 8.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition on the ground of being beyond the scope of section 153C in the absence of any incriminating material there against found in the course of search conducted under section 132 at the premises of Shri Rajeshwar Singh Yadav. 9. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holdin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted that aforesaid material was not incriminating in nature which resulted in the detection of any undisclosed assets and income of the assessee. He thereafter submitted that the condition precedent for invocation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act are that the assets/documents belonging to/pertaining to/relating to an assessee found during search u/s 132 of the Act at the premises and in possession of third party must be incriminating in nature, leading to detection of undisclosed income of such assessee. He submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Singhad Technical Society reported in 397 ITR 344 has held that as per provisions of Section 153C of the Act, incriminating material which is found in a search is to be pertained to the Assessment Year in respect of which an addition is being made and this being a jurisdictional fact, it should exist before making any impugned addition u/s 153C of the Act. He thereafter, placed reliance on various case laws and submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. reported in 380 ITR 612 after following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla [2015] 61 taxma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome of the assessee. Therefore he submitted that it cannot be construed that the bills/invoices found are not incriminating in nature. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on records. The assessee vide the aforesaid grounds is challenging the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO in framing the assessment u/s 153C of the Act. 11. For the sake of clarity and effective adjudication of the dispute at hand, Section 153C of the Act is reproduced as under: "(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the AO is satisfied that,- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the AO having jurisdiction over such other person and that AO shall proceed against each such other pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, if any, has been made, before the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the AO having jurisdiction over such other person, such AO shall issue the notice and assess or reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153A." 12. From a bare reading of the aforesaid section it is evident that the requirement of law for exercising jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act are that in the event of a search any money, bullion, jewellery or any other valuable article or thing seized or requisitioned belongs to the persons other than the searched person is found, then the AO of searched person, after recording his satisfaction, would transmit such material to the AO of the person other than the searched person. Thereafter, the AO of such other person would proceed against that person for framing the assessment as per the procedure prescribed under the Act i.e. as per the provision of Section 153A of the Act. 13. Undisputedly, in the case in hand, the AO has categorically stated that certain bills and vouchers were found and seized during the course of search. It was further reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Addl.CIT) u/s 153D of the Act was a mechanical approval without application of mind and therefore assessment order was bad in law and contrary to the settled position of law. 16. Before us, Learned AR submitted that in the present case the approval u/s 153D was granted by Addl. CIT vide approval dated 17.12.2019 (as noted by the AO in last para of the assessment order). He submitted that assessee had obtained copy of the relevant correspondence between the AO and Addl. CIT seeking the aforesaid approval. He submitted that on perusing the aforesaid correspondence, it was found that the AO from its office situated at Ghaziabad had sent letter seeking approval u/s 153D of the Act to the office of Addl. CIT at Meerut and on the very next day the approval u/s 153D of the Act was granted by Addl. CIT. He pointed to the copy of the approval letter placed at page 37 of the paper book. He submitted that the perusal of the letter of the AO would reveal that AO had sent a combined letter of 42 draft assessment orders and the approval of the Addl. CIT was also given in a combined manner for all the five orders including that o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs.93,02,377/- was incurred for the construction of the property at Noida. However, the fair market value estimated by the District Valuation Officer (DVO) of the property in question was stated to be at Rs.1,58,86,369/-. Assessee was therefore, asked to explain the difference between the value declared by it and the fair market value assessed by the DVO. The assessee offered its explanation regarding expenditure incurred by the Assessee on construction of the property in question stating that no expenditure out of books was incurred by the assessee however the same was not accepted by AO. He thereafter, on the basis of the DVO report made addition of the differential sum amounting to Rs.65,83,992/- as unexplained investments u/s 69B of the Act. When the matter was carried before CIT(A), he upheld the order of AO. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Assessee is now before us. 21. Apropos to these grounds, Learned AR for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and relied on the written submissions. The relevant contents of the written submissions are reproduced as under: "58. In the present case, at the outset, it is respectfully submitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. The reference was made to the valuation officer in the routine manner, without any material/evidence in the possession of the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.) leading to the inference that amount invested in construction was more than that recorded in the books of account without having any incriminating document/ material suggesting the actual investment is more than as shown by the Assessee. The sole basis of making the addition under section 69B in the assessment order is the report of the valuation officer, which, too, it is respectfully submitted, is only an estimate/opinion of the Valuation Officer and do not lead to the conclusion that actual investment is more than the amount recorded in the books of account. Under such circumstances, no addition could have been made under section 69B of the Act." 22. Learned AR thereafter, submitted that the AO has grossly erred in adopting the valuation of property as per DVO report who in utter disregard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and the various Benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had adopted the CPWD rates instead of state PWD rates and did not grant any credit for the supervision charges whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of FMV of the property. The AO undisputedly adopted the CPWD rate as recommended by the DVO for estimating fair market value of the property constructed by assessee. So far as the application of the rate for the purpose of arriving at the fair market value of the property is concerned, this issue is no more res integra. It has been decided in the catena of judgments that state PWD rates would be an appropriate guiding factor considering the local conditions for computing quantum of expenses incurred on construction of property in question. Learned CIT(DR) has not brought to our notice any binding precedent in support of his contentions that the fair market value estimated by the DVO override the requirement of any evidence proving the correct investment into the property. On the contrary, we find that under the similar circumstances, the Ld. Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Dr. R. Anburajan (ITA No.2014 to 2017/Mds/2011) had held that the reference to the DVO by the AO was not justified and also adoption of CPWD rates for valuation of building. We also find that the issue is squarely covered by the decisions of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ture. Even the Learned CIT(A) has given the rebate to the extent of 5% only meaning thereby that Revenue is not disputing the eligibility for such self supervision charges. Therefore, considering the experience, qualification and the expertise of the Director of the assessee company who is stated to have looked after the affairs of the construction of the building, the contribution made by such person in the saving of the expenses on construction cannot be overlooked in the absence of any contrary material on record. Under the facts of present case and looking to the totality of facts it would sub serve the interest of justice that if a rebate of self supervision @10% is granted to the assessee. Our view of granting self supervision rebate is also supported by the decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal rendered in the case of Smt. Saroj Gupta vs. ITO (2007) 106 TTJ Delhi 1073 wherein the Tribunal has allowed the self supervision rebate at the rate of 10%. We accordingly direct the AO to grant the rebate on account of self supervision charges as observed hereinabove at the rate of 10%. Thus this ground of assessee's appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated hereinabove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... those companies had duly confirmed about the investments made by them and had also filed supporting documents. He further pointed out that no adverse inference with regard to the transactions between the assessee and M/s. Inspire 2 Aspire Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was made by the AO of the share applicant in the assessment proceedings of the share applicant i.e. Inspire 2 Aspire Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. He thereafter submitted that the subsequent confirmation received u/s 133(6) establishes the fact that M/s. Inspire 2 Aspire Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was an existing entity duly assessed to tax and hence the identity was established. 32. As far as the addition with respect to the amount received from Incredible India IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, he submitted that there was no adverse material qua that company before the AO. He therefore submitted that assessee had duly discharged the onus to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions and investors as per the requirement of the Income Tax Law and therefore the amount received by the assessee as share application money cannot be added u/s 68 of the Act. In support of his content....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18] 100 taxmann.com 526 (SC) and other decisions. He therefore submitted that since the Assessee has given requisite information regarding genuineness of the transaction, identity of the applicant and creditworthiness of the creditors, the addition of Rs.3 crore being the share application money and the addition of Rs.3 lakh u/s 69C of the Act being alleged unexplained commission expenditure deserves to be deleted. 35. Ld DR strongly opposed these submissions and supported the orders of lower authorities and further contended that looking to the nature of the transactions it can be easily inferred that the transaction was a colorable device to avoid tax liability. He further contended that creditworthiness of the share applicant has not been proved by the assessee by furnishing sufficient evidences as envisaged under the Act. 36. In the rejoinder, learned AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee had given requisite information proving the genuineness of the transaction, identity of the share applicants and their creditworthiness which was also confirmed by the share applicants and that the Revenue has not made any addition in the case of share applicants which goes to p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n money. The basis of making addition being the share application money received from Inspire 2 Aspire Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is stated to be a statement made by the director of the share applicant, namely shri Ghanshyam Gupta. It is the contention of the Ld. AR that the assessee was not provided any copy of the statement relied upon by the AO and further no cross examination of Shri Ghanshyam Gupta was allowed to the assessee. It is also the grievance of the assessee that by not affording opportunity of cross examination of Shri Ghanshyam Gupta has seriously harmed the valuable legal right of the assessee thereby it caused prejudice to the assessee and resulted into gross miscarriage of justice. Even before this Tribunal the Revenue could not place any evidence suggesting that the money belonging to the assessee was in fact routed through these transactions. The law is well settled in this regard that the assessee is required to prove the genuineness of the transaction, identity of the share applicants and their credit worthiness. In the present case, the assessee had placed on record the evidences related to the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made in the assessment proceedings by the concerned AOs. Even no action having been taken by the Revenue against the share applicants on this issue as has been brought to our notice. The AO has attributed to the assessee the share application money without bringing any credible evidence in support of the same. We are of the view that it was incumbent upon the assessing authority to make necessary enquiry and bring contrary material to rebut the claim of the assessee regarding share application money being genuine and did not belong to it/or routed through the share applicants its own money. Considering the peculiarity of the facts, we are of the view that in the present case, the additions have been made purely on the basis of statement recorded at the back of the assessee without providing an opportunity of cross examination of the maker of the statements. Moreover, the statements do not reveal the specific details of the transaction with the assessee and the share applicant. Merely a sweeping statement without supported by relevant evidences cannot form the basis of making the addition. It is well settled that the addition cannot be made purely on the basis of suspicion and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of Shri Rajeshwar Singh Yadav, leave alone such material not being handed over to the assessing officer of the appellant and consequently illegal satisfaction note was recorded by the assessing officer of the appellant. 1.3 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing that (i) the invoices for purchase of construction material incurred by the appellant towards construction of property at Noida, which was duly recorded and disclosed in the books of account, constituted incriminating material within the meaning of section 153C of the Act, merely because the value of such construction expenses was determined by the DVO, on a subsequent reference made by DDIT(Inv.), at a higher value for which no adverse material of excess construction cost was available, both at the time of search as also post search investigation, as well as assessment proceedings. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the impugned order passed under section 153A, since the same was passed pursuant to a mechanical approval dated 17.12.2019 granted by the Addl. CIT under section 153D, lacking complete application of mind and thus rendering the assessment order to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng CPWD rates for property situated in Noida, which was near to Delhi whereas PWD rates was not appropriate which was meant for entire state of UP. Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to one another. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal at any time before or during the course of hearing of the appeal." 43. Before us, Ld AR submitted that the grounds raised in the present appeal are identical to that raised by the assessee in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 for A.Y. 2016-17 except for the year and the amounts involved and therefore the arguments made by him while arguing the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2016-17 may be taken as arguments made for the grounds raised in the present appeal. Ld DR did not have any objections regarding the aforesaid submissions of the Ld AR and further submitted that even he also would adopt the same arguments as made while arguing the assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2016-17 in respect of the corresponding grounds. 44. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the orders of the authorities below. The assessee has raised ground nos. 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ortunities vide notices u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 51. Before us, both the parties admitted that the ground raised in the present appeal of the Revenue is interconnected with the Ground Nos. 3 to 7.1 raised in assessee's appeal in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 for A.Y. 2017-18. 52. Before us, Ld. DR took us through the observations made by AO and submitted that in view of the categorical findings by the AO, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the additions made by AO. He therefore submitted that the order of CIT(A) be set aside and the findings of the AO be restored. 53. On the other hand Learned AR of the assessee adopted the same arguments as in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 for A.Y. 2016-17. He thus supported the order of CIT(A) and submitted that the ld CIT(A) has rightly taken note of the fact that the assessee had incurred expenses of Rs.1,20,86,755/- on construction from 01.04.2017 till the date of inspection by the DVO i.e. on 15.02.2018 and that the DVO did not consider the same as expenditure. 54. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground of the Revenue is interconnected with the ground raised by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red on facts and in law in observing that the AO was competent to refer the report of DVO submitted pursuant to reference made by DDIT(Inv.) under section 132(9D) of the Act since the same DVO - (i) was competent to issue valuation report under section 142A, (ii) as also issue report using the same method of valuation. Without Prejudice 6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the entire addition made by the AO under section 69 on the basis of valuation report of DVO, since the addition was not based on any evidence of unexplained investment made by the appellant, more so after search conducted under section 132, and was merely made by estimating the fair market value of the property which was outside the scope of provisions of section 69 r.w.s. 142A of the Act. 7. Further without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not rejecting the report of DVO which suffered from several inaccuracies qua the method of valuation followed, like adoption of CPWD rates instead of PWD rates, discounting of 20% on account of personal supervision, etc. 7.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing that the DVO had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents and made its addition. 61. Assessee preferred appeal against the action of AO before the Learned CIT(A) who after considering the submissions upheld the action of AO and sustained the additions. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 62. Learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and further submitted that had the Govt. Valuer adopted the state PWD rates instead of CPWD rates as adopted by DVO in the present case, there would not have been any addition. He, therefore, reiterated the submissions as made in the case Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra). He also placed a chart computing the fair market value of the property in question for different years after considering the State PWD rate and deduction on account of self supervision charges. For the sake of clarity, the chart so submitted by the Ld. counsel is reproduced as under: Assessment Year Amount estimated by DVO Amount declared by assessee Estimation by taking PWD rates i.e. 80% of CPWD rates taken by DVO Rebate for self- supervision charges @ 10% Total Value A B C D E F=D-E 2016-17 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... being beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.8,33,505/- which was made by the assessing officer under section 69 of the Act alleging unexplained investment in property on the basis of higher fair market value thereof determined by the DVO. 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the impugned order passed under section 153A, since the same was passed pursuant to a mechanical approval dated 20.12.2019 granted by the Addl. CIT under section 153D, lacking complete application of mind and thus rendering the assessment order to be beyond jurisdiction. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition of alleged unexplained investment on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction and scope of assessment under section 153A, since the same was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition made under section 69 on the basis of valuation report furnished by the DVO, pursuant to reference made by the DDIT(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the DVO. 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the impugned order passed under section 153A, since the same was passed pursuant to a mechanical approval dated 20.12.2019 granted by the Addl. CIT under section 153D, lacking complete application of mind and thus rendering the assessment order to be beyond jurisdiction. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition of alleged unexplained investment on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction and scope of assessment under section 153A, since the same was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition made under section 69 on the basis of valuation report furnished by the DVO, pursuant to reference made by the DDIT(Inv.), on the ground that the assessing officer was not empowered to refer the aforesaid report, without an independent reference to DVO under section 142A of the Act. 5.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing that the assessing officer was competent to refer the report of DVO submitted pursuant to re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mutandis. The grounds raised against the validity of the assessment framed u/s 153A and approval obtained u/s 153D of the Act are dismissed for the same reasons as were stated in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 (supra). In the result, the grounds in both the Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. 72. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.1117/Del/2021 and 1118/Del/2021 are partly allowed. Now we take ITA No.1122/Del/2021 in the case of Dinesh Yadav for A.Y. 2018-19 (arising out of the order of Ld.CIT(A) Kanpur-4 dated 12.08.2021): 1. "That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the assessment order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio. 1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the impugned order passed under section 143(3), since the same was passed pursuant to a mechanical approval dated 12.12.2019 granted by the Addl. CIT under section 153D, lacking complete application of mind and thus rendering the assessment order to be beyond jurisdiction. 2. That the CIT(A) erred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enerated by assessee through the sale of old paintings which were bequeathed to his wife by his late father in law. His father in law had affection for collecting various paintings which were accumulated over the past several years. He submitted that during the F.Y. 2017-18, the said paintings were sold for cash and the proceeds of the sale were kept at the residence. He pointed to the table of the paintings sold which is listed at pages 7 & 8 is as under: Sr. No. Painting Name Artist Name Year Painting of Valuation as on 31.03.2007 Cash selling Price 1. My Dream City Shamnath 1955 95,000 1,50,000 2. Puzzled Man Kirpal Singh 1955 95,000 80,000 3. Sanjhi Paper Cut Madan 1955 81,000 1,40,000 4. Pichwai Painting Nala Ram 1964 90,000 70,000 5. The Folk Dance Aparna 1955 81,000 1,70,000 6. The Music Backon Jeet 1955 63,000 1,00,000 7. The Road to Heaven Damyanti 1964 67,000 1,20,000 8. The Serene Walk Bhawandla 1955 95,000 1,50,000 9. The Waterfall Dilip Narayan 1964 67,000 70,000 10. Tree of Life Bal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee had sufficient source of income to make such purchases. Further the submissions of the assessee about the cash generated out of the sale of the paintings have not been controverted by Revenue by placing any adverse evidence on record. At the same time, it is also a fact that assessee has also not produced any evidence that was called for by the AO regarding details of purchases of paintings. Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the disallowance of claim of assessee regarding sale of paintings in the present facts of the case is excessive and arbitrary. We therefore in interest of justice restrict the addition to the extent of Rs.6,00,000/- i.e. 30% of total disallowance made by the AO and rest of the addition is hereby deleted. Thus the ground of assessee is partly allowed. 83. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1122/Del/2021 is partly allowed. Now we take ITA No.1123/Del/2021 in the case of Smt. Shashi Yadav for A.Y. 2018-19 (arising out of the order of Ld.CIT(A) Kanpur-4 dated 12.08.2021): 84. It is contended by the Learned Representatives of the parties that the effective....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red on facts and in law in holding that, on reading the aforesaid seized documents if follows that cash was paid by the appellant towards purchase of impugned property. 3.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the aforesaid document was a dumb document and the inferences drawn by the AO /CIT(A) were based on surmises and conjectures; and the presumptions under section 132(4A) and 292C could not have been drawn against the appellant since the document was not found from the premises of the appellant. 3.3 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition made by the AO, without bringing on record any adverse statement or providing any opportunity to the appellant to cross examine Mr. B. B. Goel, from whose premises aforesaid document was found, to substantiate the contents of such documents, before drawing adverse inference / conclusion against the appellant on assumption and presumptions. 3.4 Without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the aforesaid addition was beyond the scope of the provisions of section 69 of the Act. 3.5 Further, without prejudic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome as unexplained investment. Assessee inter alia denied having any information with respect to the documents seized. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, it was noted by AO that assessee along with her son Shri Manish Yadav was having a joint venture in M/s. Clavecon India Pvt. Ltd. wherein assessee and Shri Yugank Goel were directors in the company. AO also noted that the Shri B. B. Goel is a contractor in Irrigation department where Shri Rajeshwar Yadav, husband of the assessee worked as a Superintending Engineer. AO therefore concluded that families of Shri B. B. Goel and the assessee knew each other. AO was further of the view that Page 71 of Annexure - LP - 1 found at the residential premises of Shri B. B. Goel indicated that the family of Shri B. B. Goel and the family of the assessee had jointly invested in a project namely the Habitat Centre and it also reflected that the cost of shop was at Rs.25,000/- per sq.ft. for which according to AO, approximately 60% of the cost was paid in cash from unaccounted money. AO noted that no convincing reply was furnished by the assessee about the difference. He therefore treated the difference of the amount found in An....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 93. Learned CIT-DR opposed the submissions made by Ld. AR and supported the order of lower authorities. He contended that the lower authorities were justified in treating the difference as unexplained investment. He further submitted that it is a normal practice that the part payment of sale consideration is made in cash in property transactions and therefore the registration by the stamp valuation authority at lower rate as per the stamp valuation Act such amount does not reflect the true and correct fair market value of the property. He therefore, submitted that the AO has rightly treated the amount mentioned in diary as unexplained investment. 94. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the additions have been made purely on the basis of the certain loose papers found at the premises of third party. It is also undisputed that except the loose papers, there are no other documents suggesting that assessee had entered into an agreement at a higher rate than disclosed in the sale deed. The AO has also not brought any other sale instances of similarly situated properties. The law is well se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....other catena of judgments. We therefore respectfully following the binding precedents on this issue relied by the Ld. AR hold that the addition has been made purely on the basis of surmises and we therefore direct for it deletion. Thus the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 95. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Now we take ITA No.1119/Del/2021 in the case of Smt. Poonam Yadav for A.Y. 2015-16 (arising out of the order of Ld.CIT(A) Kanpur-4 dated 12.08.2021): 96. In this case, in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act, assessee electronically filed her return of income on 31.08.2019 declaring income of Rs.6,60,330/-. Thereafter, assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act vide order dated 25.12.2019 and the total income was determined at Rs.56,60,330/- inter alia by making addition of Rs.50,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. 97. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 09.08.2021 in Appeal No.CIT(A)-IV/KNP/11368/2019-20 granted partial relief to the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs.20,00,000 in respect of the loan received from M/s New Delhi Buildcon Ltd. 98. Aggrieved by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... time before or during the course of hearing of the appeal." 99. Ground Nos.3 & 4 are against the validity of the assessment framed u/s 153A and approval granted u/s 153D of the Act. 100. It is submitted on behalf of the Ld. Authorized Representatives of the respective parties that the issues raised in these grounds are identical to the ground raised in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1127/Del/2021(supra) and therefore, they have same arguments to make. Further, it was contended that submissions made and contentions raised in that case may be treated as the part of submissions of this appeal as well. 101. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have taken a view against the assessee in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and dismissed the grounds related to the framing of assessment u/s 153A of the Act and approval u/s 153D. Since the issue raised in the present appeal is identical to that raised in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra), therefore for the same reasoning the Ground Nos. 3 & 4 are dismissed and our finding in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut finding any fault with the aforesaid fact on record, merely stated that since the assessee had failed to provide the confirmation, ITR-Acknowledgement, and bank statement of the lender, the genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the lender is not substantiated by the assessee and therefore made the addition u/s 68 of the Act. He further submitted that loan that was taken was repaid in the year of borrowing itself and therefore it cannot be considered to be not genuine so as to invoke the provision u/s 68 of the Act. He further contended that even otherwise also no addition can be sustained u/s 68 of the Act as the assessee is not required to maintain the books of accounts and Section 68 of the Act presupposes the maintenance of the books of accounts. He contended that in view of the decisions of the coordinate Benches of this tribunal wherein it has been categorically held that if the loan was received and repaid in the same year, no addition u/s 68 will be called for. For this proposition he placed reliance on the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Navyug Iron Traders vs. DCIT in ITA No.553/Del/2017 dated 24.09.2019 and the decision of Delhi Trib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is that she has not been maintaining "books of accounts", and as per the provisions of law she is not required to maintain books of accounts in terms of Section 44AA of the Act. We are unable to accept this contention of the assessee that the AO would have no power to examine the issue of unsecured loan if the assessee is not required to maintain the books of accounts statutorily due to falling in a special class of assessee. Thus this argument of the Ld. AR is devoid of any merits. However, regarding unsecured loans received from M/s. Zarf Trading & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. the Assessee had provided income tax return acknowledgement, bank statements of those parties. The AO without carrying out requisite enquiry proceeded purely on the basis of surmise and therefore, such approach of the assessing authority is not in accordance with the settled position of law. Admittedly in the present case no addition has been made in the case of the lender. Hence, it can be safely inferred that no addition has been made in the hand of the lender meaning thereby the source of such amount has been duly accepted in the hand of lender since no addition has been made by AO. Therefore, in our considered v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of being beyond jurisdiction and scope of assessment under section 153A, since the same was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition made under section 69 on the basis of valuation report furnished by the DVO, pursuant to reference made by the DDIT(Inv.), on the ground that the AO was not empowered to refer the aforesaid report, without an independent reference to DVO under section 142A of the Act. 5.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing that the AO was competent to refer the report of DVO submitted pursuant to reference made by DDIT(Inv.) under section 132(9D) of the Act since the same DVO - (i) was competent to issue valuation report under section 142A, (ii) as also issue report using the same method of valuation. Without Prejudice 6. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the entire addition made by the AO under section 69 on the basis of valuation report of DVO, since the addition was not based on any evidence of unexplained investment made by the appellant, more so after search conducted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... identical to the ground raised in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1127/Del/2021(supra) and therefore they have same arguments to make. 115. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have taken a view in favour of the assessee in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Since the issue raised in the present appeal is identical to that raised in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra), therefore for the same reasoning the other grounds related to the valuation and investment of the property at Noida are allowed and our finding in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present grounds. Thus the grounds of assessee are allowed. 116. In the result, the grounds in the appeal in ITA No.1448/Del/2021 of the assessee are partly allowed. 117. The grounds raised in ITA No.1120/Del/2021 reads as under: 1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the assessment order dated 25.12.2019 passed by the assessing officer under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio. 2. That the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accuracies qua the method of valuation followed, like adoption of CPWD rates instead of PWD rates, discounting of 20% on account of personal supervision, etc. 7.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing that the DVO had adopted the appropriate method to determine the fair market value of the property and adopting CPWD rates for property situated in Noida, which was near to Delhi whereas PWD rates was not appropriate which was meant for entire state of UP. 8. Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to one another. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal at any time before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 118. Ground Nos. 1, 3 & 4 are against the validity of the assessment framed u/s 153A and approval granted u/s 153D of the Act. 119. It is submitted on behalf of the Ld. Authorized Representatives of the respective parties that the issues raised in these grounds are identical to the ground raised in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1127/Del/2021(supra) and therefore, they have same arguments to make. 120. We have heard the rival submissions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....D, lacking complete application of mind and thus rendering the assessment order to be beyond jurisdiction. 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.3,46,20,962/- made by the AO under section 69 of the Act alleging unexplained investment in property at Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, on the basis of some documents found during the course of independent search at premises of third party, i.e., Shri B.B. Goel, containing name of, inter alia, appellant with amount invested in the aforesaid property. 3.1 That the C1T(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that, on reading the aforesaid seized documents it follows that cash was paid by the appellant towards purchase of impugned property. 3.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the aforesaid document was a dumb document and the inferences drawn by the AO / CIT (A) were based on surmises and conjectures; and the presumptions under section 132 (4A) and 292C could not have been drawn against the appellant since the document was not found from the premises of the appellant. 3.3 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....during the course of hearing of the appeal." 126. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are against challenging the validity of jurisdiction thereby framing the assessment u/s 153A and approval u/s 153D of the Act. 127. It is submitted on behalf of the Ld. Authorized Representatives of the respective parties that the issues raised in these grounds are identical to the ground raised in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 (supra) and therefore, they have same arguments to make. 128. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have taken a view against the assessee in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and dismissed the grounds related to the framing of assessment u/s 153A of the Act and approval u/s 153D. Since the issue raised in the present appeal is identical to that raised in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (supra), therefore for the same reasoning the Ground Nos. 1, & 2 are dismissed and our finding in ITA No.1127/Del/2021 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present grounds. Thus the grounds of assessee are dismissed. 129. Ground Nos. 3 to 3.5 are with respect to the addition of Rs.3,46,20,962/- u/s 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... does not belong to him. He further stated that relations of his and his family members are not well with his in-laws since last eight years. Further, it is recorded by the AO that during the course of post search proceedings, statement of Shri Manish Yadav (husband of the assessee) was recorded u/s 131(1A) of the Act and he was asked to explain about the jewellery found in the residential premises of Shri Dinesh Yadav. In response thereto he stated that prior to the search operation, there was some function in his family and his wife Poonam Yadav and his sister Ms. Shweta Singh were wearing some jewellery which was left at the residential house of Shri Dinesh Yadav due to security reasons and hence the jewellery found and seized at the residential premises of Shri Dinesh Yadav belonged to his wife and sister and therefore considering the statement made by the husband of the assessee and Shri Dinesh Yadav, AO held that the out of the total jewellery of 2916.158 gms found at the residential premises of Dinesh Yadav, 80 gms of jewellery valuing Rs.2,37,920/- belonged to Shri Dinesh Yadav and his family members and the remaining jewellery valued at Rs.94,38,552/- belonged to Smt. Poon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ery of Mr. Manish Yadav and his family in a separate pouch and the pouch had the name of Shweta on it. The remaining 1808.82 gms of jewellery was stated to be belonging to Shri Manish Yadav and his family including Mrs. Poonam Yadav. He further filed a chart explaining the ownership of jewellery as under: Name of Family Gms. Assessee's Stand Mr. Dinesh Yadav and Family 705.04 (Gold Jewellery) + 78.11 Gms - Diamond Stone Total - 783.15 Gms * Mr. Dinesh Yadav during his assessment proceedings explained his family's entitlement at 950 Grams (Self 100, Wife - 500, Daughter 250, Son 100). It was claimed to be covered by entitlement as envisaged in relevant circular of CBDT. Less : Relief allowed by AO of 451.45 Gms [80 Gms + 371.450 Gms] Total : 331.70 Gms Mrs. Arshi Manoj (Sister in law of Mr. Dinesh Yadav) 535.28 Gms * Arshi Yadav submitted an affidavit interalia explaining her family's entitlement at 1100 gms (Husband - 100, Wife - 500, Two daughters - 500). It was claimed to be covered by entitlement as envisaged in relevant CBDT Circular. * While in search at her premises 31Gms and 535.28 Gms found from Mr. Dinesh's premises stand explained....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onging to Shri Dinesh Yadav and his family members. Secondly, the AO did not consider the gift deed evidencing the fact that the jewellery was received as a gift from Grandmother in law, Smt Sonwati. Thirdly, the AO erroneously rejected the evidence in the form of bills on the basis that TIN number belonged to Shri Subhash Chand Jain without taking into consideration the fact that Shri Subhash Chand Jain being the proprietor of firm, Shree Jewellers, therefore TIN was registered in his personal name and fourthly, the explanation offered regarding the jewellery of other persons who had duly affirmed the ownership by filing affidavit. 140. We find merit in the submissions of the Ld. AR that had the AO given the benefit of CBDT instructions and considered the evidences in the form of gift deed, affidavit, bills and vouchers the impugned addition would have reduced substantially. We are therefore of the considered view that not granting the benefit of CBDT Instructions No. 1916 (supra), and in the light of binding precedents has resulted into gross injustice to the assessee. We therefore, direct the AO to grant benefit of CBDT instructions to Shri Dinesh Yadav and his family members....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting evidences were filed in the form of PAN Card of the lender, confirmation of the lender, bank statement of the lender and bank statement of the assessee which reflected the amounts received from the lender. However, the AO wrongly stated that no amount to the extent of the loan has been debited in the bank statement of Shri Shantanoo Goyal. It is noteworthy that AO had made addition of Rs.52,50,000/- out of which Rs.32,50,000/-, being loan received from Shri Pravin and Smt. Mamta Kapoor was deleted by the Learned CIT(A). However, the sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was sustained by the CIT(A) as assessee had failed to furnish ITR and other details to verify the credit. 144. In this regard the submissions of the Ld AR is that the identity of the lender is established by the PAN Card of the lender, the genuineness of the transactions was also fully established by the fact that the transaction was duly recorded and confirmed in the accounts of the lenders and was received through banking channels. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Kishori Lal Construction Ltd., [2010] 5 Taxmann.com 60 (Delhi). He furt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g a different stand that the assessee failed to prove credit worthiness of the lender upheld the addition. However, the AO had made addition on the basis that there was no debit entry in the bank statement of the lender. However, looking into the material placed on record in support of the claim regarding loan of Rs. 20 lakh received from Shri Shantnoo Goyal, the amount is duly reflected. Therefore, the suspicion of AO is baseless. We, therefore, looking to the material placed on record are of considered view that the AO erroneously made addition and hence same is hereby deleted. Thus the ground of the assessee is allowed. 148. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Now we take ITA No.1124/Del/2021 in the case of Manish Yadav for A.Y. 2018-19 (arising out of the order of Ld.CIT(A) Kanpur-4 dated 12.08.2021): 149. Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 passed by the AO under section 143(3)/153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio. 2. That the CIT(A) erred o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aining the addition of Rs.84,01,956/- and Rs.4,56,000/- made the AO under section 69A alleging unexplained investment in gold / diamond / silver jewellery found from the residential premises of the appellant at the time of search, by rejecting the explanation offered by the appellant regarding ownership and source of such investment, on surmises and conjectures. Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to one another. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal at any time before or during the course of hearing of the appeal." 150. Ground Nos.1 & 2 are against challenging the validity of jurisdiction thereby framing the assessment u/s 153A and approval u/s 153D of the Act. 151. It is submitted on behalf of the Learned Authorized Representatives of the respective parties that the issues raised in these grounds are identical to the ground raised in the case of Ecstasy Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1127/Del/2021(supra) and therefore they have same arguments to make. 152. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have taken a view against the assessee in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asked to explain the source of acquisition of the jewellery along with the supporting documents and evidences. Assessee inter alia made the submissions about the source and ownership of the jewellery. The submissions of the assessee were not found acceptable to AO. AO thereafter, following the CBDT instructions gave credit of the jewellery with respect to the family members of the assessee amounting to Rs.46,24,102/- and remaining jewellery and Bullions 2379.662 gms valued at Rs.84,01,956/- was added as unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Act. 158. During the course of search, 11500 gms of silver jewellery amounting to Rs.4,56,000/- was also found. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee was asked to explain the source of investment of the jewellery to which assessee made the submissions. The submissions of the assessee were not found acceptable to AO. AO held that in the absence of any explanation or documentary evidences, the investment of Rs.4,56,000/- in the jewellery to be unexplained and made its additions u/s 69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of AO, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who upheld the order of AO. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A),....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Smt Sonwati. The AO treated this explanation as afterthought without bringing any material rebutting such explanations. Therefore looking to the totality of the facts, had the AO given setoff, the jewellery belonging to Shri Gajendra Singh and his family weighing 1500 gms and jewellery belonging to the wife of the assessee, then in that event the addition would have reduced drastically. In the case of Poonam Yadav in ITA No.1121/Del/2021 (supra) we have directed the AO to give set off of the jewellery received as a gift from grandmother in law of Smt. Poonam Yadav and for the same reasoning the AO would allow the setoff of the jewellery belonging to Gajendra Singh and his family and the jewellery belonging to the wife of the assessee that was received as gift from grandmother law and was part of the jewellery that was found at the residential premises of the assessee and his locker. Looking to the facts and material placed before us, we are of the considered view that the action of AO is not justified for not giving set off of jewellery belonging to other persons and duly explained by the assessee. We, therefore, taking a holistic view restrict the addition to the extent of 300 gms....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the ground of being beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of Rs.63,27,948, out of total addition of Rs.4,02,36,126/- and not deleting the aforesaid entire addition, which was made by the assessing officer under section 69B of the Act alleging unexplained investment in property on the basis of higher fair market value thereof determined by the DVO. 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not quashing the impugned order passed under section 143(3), since the same was passed pursuant to a mechanical approval dated 20.12.2019 granted by the Addl. CIT under section 153D, lacking complete application of mind and thus rendering the assessment order to be beyond jurisdiction. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not deleting the aforesaid addition made under section 69B of the Act on the basis of valuation report furnished by the DVO, pursuant to reference made by the DDIT, on the ground that the assessing officer was not empowered to refer the aforesaid report, without an ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,000/- on account of corpus donations. AO noticed that during the year under consideration assessee had received corpus donations of Rs.3,00,00,000/- from Shri Hazarimal Somani Memorial Trust, Rs.2,00,00,000/- from Bhadram Janhit Shalika and Rs.25,00,000/- from Narinaka Sewa Kendra. To verify the genuineness of the donations, notices u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued by the AO on 27.08.2019. AO has noted that no response was received to the notices u/s 133(6) of the Act. AO at para 10 of his order noted that in the case of Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, incomplete information was received from its Chartered Accountant and no confirmation from the donor, or audited balance sheet and income & expenditure account was furnished. AO therefore, was of the view that the donation was given by it to the assessee could not be verified in the absence of audited balance sheet. In respect of the other donors, AO noted that no information in respect to confirmation was furnished by the donors. He noted that assessee had also failed to furnish the required details inspite of various opportunities granted by the AO. AO therefore held that assessee had failed to establish identity and creditworth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e addition of Rs.8,25,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal. 168. Learned DR took us through the findings of AO and supported his order. He further submitted that since corpus donations is permanent in nature it should be confirmed by the donor and if the AO has not done full enquiry, Learned CIT(A) ought to have made the necessary enquiries before deciding the issue. He thus supported the order of AO and submitted that CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by AO. 169. Learned AR on the other hand reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A) and further submitted that assessee has discharged its initial onus by proving the identity and the creditworthiness of the donors and the additions made by the AO was only based on surmise and not based on the facts. He thus supported the order of CIT(A). 170. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that Ld CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee has given finding of fact by observing as under: "7.5 I have carefully examined the submission filed by the appellant and found force in it. Further, contention of the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s 68 is hereby deleted. Accordingly Ground No 3 is allowed to the appellant." 171. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by Revenue by placing any contrary material on record. Moreover, the AO has not brought any evidence on record suggesting that the Assessee routed its own money through donors. Admittedly, Revenue has not brought any material suggesting that any action has been taken and or contemplated against the donors under the Act. Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. 172. Ground No.2 is with respect to deletion of addition made by the AO of Rs.5.75 crores. 173. AO has observed that a survey operation u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the premises of Sita Devi Memorial Shiksha Sansthan on 10.11.2017 and certain documents were found and impounded. A ledger account of M/s. Metamorphosis Constructions relating to F.Y. 2016-17 were found wherein it reflected an amount of Rs.12,72,00,000/- was written to be paid to M/s Metamorphosis Construction and out of which Rs.5,75,00,000/- was written in cash. Assessee was asked to exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the details of construction expenses paid to Metamorphosis Construction ("Contractor"), which is duly recorded in the books of the accounts of the Appellant. The said fact has not been disputed by the AO. Further, it is noticed that there are some scribbling on the bottom part of the page wherein a figure of cheque 6.47 and cash of Rs. 5.75 is mentioned. On the right side of said figure of Cheque 6.47, a figure of 0.50 is mentioned that makes the cheque figure to 6.97. The AO considered the said figure of cash of Rs. 5.75 as to depict 5.75 crore and made an addition of Rs. 5.75 crores in the hands of the Appellant. The Appellant submitted that such rough handwritten scribbling cannot be treated as part of books of account and is dumb document for the Appellant. For this the Appellant relied on the various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court. The Appellant further submitted that no show cause notice or other details were asked by the AO under notice u/s 142(1) to respond in this regard. In this regard, I perused the para 13 of the Assessment Order wherein the details of such addition made by the AO are mentioned, wherein no notice of any nature was found to be mentione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espect to deleting the addition of Rs.3,39,08,178/-. 180. During the year under consideration, AO noted that assessee has disclosed the investment of Rs.9,06,00,243/- in the construction on the Plot bearing No.196/2B, Sector - 51, Noida on which the school namely LPS Global School was running. He noted that as per valuation report received from DVO, Delhi, the total construction value that was determined by him at Rs.13,08,36,369/- meaning thereby that there was difference of Rs.4,02,36,126/-. Assessee was asked to explain the difference of the aforesaid amount with necessary documentary evidences. Before AO, Assessee inter alia stated that the DVO has made estimation of fair market value of the property but the value declared by the assessee was actual cost incurred. It was further submitted that DVO had stated that the property was under construction but on the contrary the valuation was done by DVO by assuming the construction as completed. The submissions of the assessee were not found acceptable to AO. AO concluded the differential value between the valuation made by DVO and that declared by the assessee amounting to Rs.4,02,36,123/- as unexplained investment and made its a....