TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 705
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d seized during the search and post search inquiry, hence the impugned assessment order is ab initio void, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer for using the material recovered from third party/other person not related to appellant without bringing any material on record to show that in fact alleged amount was paid/belong to assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in confirming the disallowance of expenses of' Rs.93,40,135/- incurred exclusive for business purpose of the assessee and adding the same u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act,1961. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer I. Alleging that the business expenses are not genuine and are in the nature of personal expenses. II. Alleging that assessee failed to discharge onus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....existing liability as cessation of liability and adding the same u/s 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer:- I. Alleging that the creditors outstanding from more than 3 years in the books of accounts deemed to have ceased to exist and added the same. II. Not providing adequate and proper opportunity of being heard and to produce the evidences. 5. The appellant crave leave to amend, alter, add/modify any or all grounds of appeal." I.T.A. No. 9748/DEL/2019 :- 4. Brief facts of the case are that, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) was carried out at the business/residential premises of Paras Mal Lodha Group and during the course of the search certain documents belonging to assessee were seized on the basis of the document seized, proceedings u/s 153A of were initiated in the case of the assessee. The assessee has filed the return declaring a loss of Rs.32,16,042/- in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act. 5. The asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctly to Hotel Leela Palace, Chanakyapuri. It is the specific case of the assessee is that whole expenses were borne by buyer of the event and no payment was made by the assessee. 11. Since, the amounts have not been debited by the assessee and in fact paid by the buyer M/s Cinemine Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., the addition made by the A.O. u/s 69C which was sustained by the CIT(A) is deserves to be deleted. Ground No. 5 & 6 Addition as unexplained money of Rs.1,00,00,000/-: 12. Brief facts are that a MOU between the assessee and M/s Rajat Pharmachem Ltd. was seized. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to explain the transaction and to produce the proof to show that it has been accounted for the books. The assessee had furnished the reply on 21/12/2018 wherein submitted as under:- " Documents seized from...to provide legal assistance to Rajat Pharma Chem Ltd. However this understanding did not materialized executed due to non suitability of commercial terms and conditions. Hence, it do not have any evidentiary value." 13. The A.O. was of the opinion that the assessee had failed to discharge its primary onus to explain the incriminat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned. 18. In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 9748/Del/2019 is allowed. ITA No. 9750/Del/2019 (A.Y 2017-18) Ground No. 1 & 2 19. The Ground No. 1 & 2 are against disallowance of unexplained expenditure u/s 69 of the Act. The Ld. A.O. has issued show cause notice informing the assessee that survey action at Hotel Lila Kampinsic, Chanakyapuri was carried out wherein the ledger account of the assessee company was found showing the bills raised and payment made by the assessee of Rs. 1,15,10,433/- should not be disallowed. In response, the assessee informed the A.O. that the expenses were incurred exclusively for the business purpose of the assessee and since customers of the assessee and Director used to visit Delhi for the business purpose, hence, claimed the same as business expenses. To prove the position, the assessee submitted the bank book and ledger showing that payments were made through banking channels and suitably accounted for in the books of accounts and disclosed in the P&L account under the head of travelling and conveyance. 20. Not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the A.O. has made addition of Rs. 71,270/- u/s 69C as unex....