TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 855
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that any addition during the assessment u/s 153A has to be confined to the incriminating material found during the course of search u/s 132(1) of the Act, even though there is no such stipulation in sec 153A of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that sec. 153A requires a notice to be issued requiring the assessee to furnish his return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years and to assess or to assess the total income of those six assessment years, and that the scheme of assessment or to assessment of the total income of a person searched will be brought to naught if no addition is allowed to be made for those six assessment years in the absence of any seized incriminating material. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in low, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that while computation of undisclosed income of the block period u/s. 158BB was to be made on the basis of evidence found as a result of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e absence of incriminating materials found during search. 4. The necessary facts are that there was a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act carried out at the 'Barter Group' dated 04-12-2014 and a search warrant was also issued in the name of the present assessee. Accordingly, proceedings under section 153A of the Act were initiated in the case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2009-10 to 2014-15. Finally, the AO, for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2011-12 finalized the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, wherein the AO treated the credit entries in the bank account of the assessee aggregating to Rs. 1,78,35,069/- as unexplained investment under section 69 and added to his total income. 5. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before of the learned CIT(A). 5.1 The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that during the search at his premises, there was no material of incriminating nature found regarding credit entries in bank account. The AO made addition based on bank entries which has already been incorporated and shown in the return of income. Further, such a bank statement was also not found during the search proceeding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osition of law as evident from various decisions of Tribunal as well as High Court that Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to make additions in the order passed u/s 153A of the Act which are not pertaining to any undisclosed income or seized material when proceedings are closed and attained finality. In support of its contention the appellant strongly relied on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT Vs. Saumya Construction Pvt Ltd (Tax appeal No. 24 of 2016) dated 14th March 2016, the facts and findings of which are restated as under." ******************************************************************* "7.7 It is an undisputed fact that on the date of initiation of the search no assessment proceedings were pending in this assessment year. Therefore, the proceedings were not abated in the case as mentioned in the second proviso to section 153A(1) of the Act. It seems that the AO lost sight of the fact that he was not making an assessment under section 153A(1) of the Act read with its second proviso. As discussed hereinabove, there is no indication in the contents of the assessment order that the addition was made on the basis of any incriminat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court that the completed assessments cannot be disturbed in the absence of any incriminating material/ documents whereas the assessment/ reassessment can be made with respect to abated assessment years. The word 'assess' in Section 153A/153C of the Act is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to the completed assessment proceedings. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd. reported in 81 taxmann.com 292, has held that there cannot be any addition of regular items shown in the books of accounts until and unless there were certain materials of incriminating nature found during search. The word incriminating has not been defined under the Act, but it refers to materials/ documents/ information which were collected during the search proceedings and not produced in the original assessment proceeding. Simultaneously, these documents had bearing on the total income of the assessee. Now coming to the case, we note that addition was made based on the amount credited in the bank account of the assessee without referring to incriminating document f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,147/- being unaccounted receipt on account of noting/ jotting on loose paper/pocket diary etc. 15. At the outset, we note that identical addition of unaccounted receipts and payment based on noting/ jotting on loose papers/pocket diary were also made in AY 2014-15 and 2015-16 on which both the Revenue and the assessee were before us in separate appeals. As such, the facts of the issue of unaccounted receipts/ payment for the year under consideration viz a viz the succeeding years i.e. AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15, 2015-16 are interconnected. Hence, for the sake of brevity, we combined the issue raised by the assessee and revenue regarding unaccounted receipt and payment in all these three assessment years. 15.1 The necessary facts are that the during the search and seizure action at the residence of the assessee, certain loose papers, pocket diaries etc. marked as Annexure A-1 to A-10 were discovered which were containing various noting relating to the land dealings situated at Memnagar, Hasdad, and Hasol besides other noting and jottings. The AO during the assessment proceeding required the assessee to explain the noting/ jotting on the loose papers/pocket diary in specified f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the assessee regarding duplicate entries and banking transactions re-worked the unaccounted receipts and payments which were bifurcated in AY 2013-14 to 2015-16 detailed as under: Sl. No. A.Y. Payment (Rs.) Receipt (Rs.) 1 2013-14 16,36,493 37,68,640 2 2014-15 1,33,22,253 47,95,000 3 2015-16 17,34,13,108 7,66,97,954 Total 18,83,71,854 8,52,61,594 17.1 The AO accordingly made the addition of unaccounted receipt under section 69A of the Act. Likewise, the AO also made the addition of unaccounted payment after adjusting the unaccounted receipts under section 69C of the Act. Hence, the AO made addition of the net amount in all these three AYs detailed as under: 1. A.Y. 2013-14 Rs. 37,68,640/- 2. A.Y. 2014-15 Rs. 1,33,22,253/- 3. A.Y. 2015-16 Rs. 17,34,13,108/- 18. Aggrieved assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT-A. 18.1 The assessee before the learned CIT(A) made contentions applicable to all the years in dispute i.e. A.Y. 2013-14 to 2015-16 which are detailed as under: (i) During the search operation, no assets, being money, bullion, jewelry etc. were found whereas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other than the amount worked out by the AO from such specific loose pages. Similarly, in some cases the assessee did not agree with the amounts of receipts and payment worked out by the AO at all. 20. The learned CIT(A) after considering the finding of the AO, assessee's contention regarding each page and statement recorded during the search proceeding worked out the amounts of receipts and payments coming out from seized documents. The basis adopted by the learned CIT(A) can be summarized as under: 1. In cases where there was no dispute between the AO and the assessee regarding the amounts of receipts or payments recorded on loose pages, the learned CIT-A has taken the same as it is. 2. In cases where the assessee worked the different amount than what has been worked out by the AO, the learned CIT(A) analyzed the specific page in the light of content on such pages and oral statement of the assessee if any recorded during the search proceeding, thereafter, he worked out the amount of receipt or payments as per his analysis. 3. In cases where the assessee was not agreed with the amounts worked out by the AO from specific pages at all, the learned CIT(A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pts and payments for each year being AY 2013-14 to 2015- 16. The AO, accordingly, treated the receipts as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and likewise treated net payments after adjusting the receipts as unexplained expenses under section 69C of the Act. On appeal by assessee, the learned CIT(A) re-worked out the receipt and payments recorded in the impugned sheets and added the difference amount as income of the assessee and thereby the learned CIT(A) provided the substantial relief to the assessee. Now both the assessee and Revenue are before us in separate appeal for separate assessment years. The issue before us can be summarized as under: (i) Whether income can be assessed based on noting or jotting on the loose sheets /diary etc. found during search? (ii) The materials found in the premises of the present assessee are dumb documents or not? (iii) The quantum of transaction of receipt and payment on the impugned sheets? 25.1 With regard to the first question, we note that the provisions of section 132(4A) and section 292C of the Act provide that in the search proceedings any books of account, other document found from the possession....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sheets, notepad, diary etc. containing various type of noting jotting which can be found and impounded. But the same cannot be construed as the income of the assessee unless and until such documents are speaking one. A document/loose sheets/note pad can be said speaking one if such document itself or if reads in conjecture with some other corroborative document shall be able to give following information: (i) Whether such document contains some transaction subjected to tax and consequently bears the tax liability. (ii) If yes, taxability in whose hands? (iii) The year of taxability of such income. (iv) The rate and amount of tax 25.3 A non-speaking document without any corroborative material, evidence on record and finding that such document has materialized into transactions giving rise to income of the assessee which had not been disclosed in regular books of account by such assessee, must disregarded for the purposes of assessments to be framed pursuant to search and seizure action. From the search and seizure perspective, such non-speaking seized documents are to be referred to as "Dumb Documents". Therefore, in our considered opinion any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll the persons whose names there on the note book/loose slips and their statements to be recorded and then such statement undoubtedly should be confronted to the assessee and he has to be allowed to cross examine the parties. 25.5 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) vs. Union of India (popularly known as Sahara-Birla Diary) reported in 77 taxmann.com 245 by following the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble SC in the case of C.B.I. v. V.C. Shukla [1998] 3 SCC 410 held as under: 20. It is apparent from the aforesaid discussion that loosesheets of papers are wholly irrelevant as evidence being not admissible under Section 34 so as to constitute evidence with respect to the transactions mentioned therein being of no evidentiaryvalue. The entire prosecution based upon such entries which led to the investigation was quashed by this Court. 25.6 Thus, in view of the above discussion the answer to the question is that no assessment can be made in the hand of the assessee on basis of certain noting/jotting/rough estimates on the loose sheets/note pad/diary etc. unless and until same is corroborated with independent cogent material giving rise t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such, there were some cases where there is no dispute between assessee regarding receipts or payments noted on a particular page. 25.9. Thus, if we see the facts of the noting made on seized document in the light of admission made by the assessee in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act which has not been retracted and the submission made by the assessee before the Revenue authorities, such documents cannot be said to be dumb document. 25.10 Likewise, the learned CIT(A) analyzed every page of seized material in the light of finding of the AO, submission of the assessee and the oral statement of the assessee recorded under section 132(4) of the Act and the contents of pages. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) held that pages of seized document are either dumb document or non-speaking one and worked out the amount of the receipts or payment from such pages. The finding and analysis of the learned CIT(A) nowhere been controverted either by the learned AR or the learned DR. Therefore, the finding of the learned CITA(A) cannot be brushed aside in absence of cogent contrary materials. 25.11 We find that the learned CIT(A) worked out the amount of unaccounted recei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e extent." 27. The first issue raised by the revenue in ground Nos. 1 and 2 is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in restricting the addition made by the AO to the tune of Rs. 36,87,106/- instead of confirming the entire addition of Rs. 1,33,82,263/-. 28. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15 has been dealt with assessee appeal in IT(SS)A No. 46/AHD/2021 for the assessment year 2013-14. The issue has been dealt with in detail vide paragraph no. 25 of this order where we have decided the issue against the Revenue. For detailed discussion, please refer to the paragraph of this order. Hence, the grounds of appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. 29. The next issue raised by the revenue is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 91,80,000/- on account of unexplained credit entries in bank. 30. The necessary facts are that the AO during the assessment proceeding found that the assessee's bank account maintained with Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd was credited by Rs. 1,69,25,848/- throughout the year. The AO, in absence of satisfactory explanation regard....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the bank to the extent of Rs. 77,75,848/- remains unexplained therefore addition to this extent needs to be sustained. 31.4 With regard to the credit entry from Shri Paresh N Patel for Rs. 59 Lacs the AO submitted that the bank statement of party was not legible as the Xerox copy was faded, hence the same was not acceptable. Likewise, in the case of the party namely Shree Pushkar Construction Co., the confirmation letter was not dated, and the bank statement also pertains to different periods. 31.5 With regard to credit entry from Labdhi Finance for Rs. 15 Lacs, the AO submitted that same is proprietary concern of Shri Atul Hiralal Shah in whose case the transaction of loans or advances were not found to be genuine. 31.6 With regard to the credit entry of Rs. 10 lakhs from Shri Dharmesh Chandulal Patel, the AO submitted only confirmation and bank statement. There is no detail of ITR, hence the creditworthiness was not verified. 32. The learned CIT(A) after considering facts in totality deleted the addition made by the AO on account of credit entry in the bank except for the amount of Rs. 77.45 Lacs credited form Jalaram Finvest Ltd. The relevant finding of the learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act only but the same has been done u/s 69 of IT Act As has been held in the preceding paras that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness has been duly proved by the appellant by furnishing the necessary details and documents in support. Therefore, the primary onus cast upon the appellant has been discharged except in the case of Jalaram Finvest Ltd from whom the appellant has obtained the loan of Rs 77,45,000/-. Thus the addition to the extent of Rs 77,45,000/- in respect of Jalaram Finvet Ltd has not been established to be genuine and neither the creditworthiness is proved, hence the same is confirmed. 8.6 However, in respect of the other depositors the addition is legally found not sustainable and the same are deleted respectfully following the decisions/judgments of the Hon'ble Courts including the followings: a) CIT v/s Apex Therm Packaging Pvt Ltd (2014) (42 taxman.com 473 (Guj)) b) Pratapbhai Virjibhai Patel v/s ITO (2014) (45 Taxman.com 151 (Guj)) c) DCIT vs Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) d) ITO vs Riddhi Siddhi Corporation ITA No 2248/Ahd/2012 e) CIT vs Ranchhod JivabhaiNakhava [....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he identity of the creditors had not been established, consequently, the question of establishment of the genuineness of the transactions or the creditworthiness of the creditors did not and could not arise. The Tribunal did not apply its mind to the facts of this particular case and proceeded on the footing that since the transactions were through the bank account, it was to be presumed that the transactions were genuine. It was not for the ITO to find out by making investigation from the bank accounts unless the assessee proved the identity of the creditors and their creditworthiness. Mere payment by account payee cheque was not sacrosanct nor could it make a non-genuine transaction genuine." 35.1 Now, 1st we proceed to understand the identity of the party. The identity of the party refers to the existence of such a party which can be proven based on the evidence. As such the identity of a party can be established by furnishing the name, address and PAN detail, bank details, passport, and other details of the Government agencies. 35.2 The next stage comes to verify the genuineness of the transaction. Genuineness of transaction refers what has been asserted is true and authe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellate proceeding claimed the same as loan credit and to establish identity, genuineness and credit worthiness furnished PAN, copy of confirmation letter, copy of bank statement of parties and copy of ITR acknowledgment. The AO in the remand report only objected to that bank statement either not visible or of another period. The AO did not feel it necessary to call for another copy of the bank statement. Therefore, in such facts and circumstances, we hold that assessee discharged primary onus cast upon him, hence we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned CIT(A) as he rightly deleted the addition made by the AO to this extent. 35.9 With regard to the credit aggregating to Rs. 15 Lacs from Labdhi Finance, we note that the assessee furnished PAN, copy of confirmation letter, copy of bank statement of party, and copy of ITR acknowledgment. The AO in the remand only objected that the sources of fund and advance made by the party namely Labdhi Finance held as bogus. In this respect, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is only liable to explain the sources of credit in his books which he duly discharged. If any adverse action is taken in the case of cred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 47/AHD/2021, an appeal by the Assessee for the A.Y. 2014-15 36. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. The Ld. CIT(A)-11 erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.36,87,106/- being alleged unaccounted payments, ignoring detailed factual and legal submission of the Appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-11 erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.77,45,000/- made u/s. 68 of the Act ignoring the fact that the Appellant is not required to maintain any books of account and therefore, question of any unexplained credit entry in the same doesn't arise. 3. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter one or more grounds of appeal." 37. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in sustaining the addition for Rs. 36,87,106/- made by the AO on account of unaccounted payment based on loose paper. 38. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee in his grounds of appeal for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15 has been dealt with assessee's appeal in IT(SS)A No. 46/AHD/2021 for the assessment year 2013-14. The issue has been dealt with in detail vide parag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly restricting the net unaccounted payment of Rs.75,11,691 (Rs.6,39,76,925 - Rs.5,64,65,234), when no one to one correlation has been made by the assessee so as to grant him the benefit of telescoping. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of unexplained credit entries in Bank of Rs.8,00,000/- despite the assessee could not establish the genuineness of transaction even during assessment proceedings or remand proceedings. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 6. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent." 42. The 1st issue raised by the revenue is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs. 70,00,000/- representing unexplained cash based on the seized material found on the premises of the assessee without considering provisions of section 132(4A) of the Act. 43. The necessary facts as emerging from the order of the authorities below are that the assessee in the present ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be explained by the person who maintained it i.e. Shri Ashit Haribhai Vora. Such transactions were not recorded in the handwriting of the assessee and therefore the same cannot be used against him (the assessee). 48. The assessee with respect to the seized document bearing page No. 7 of annexure-A1 submitted that it was not discernible from such seized document whether it relates to the payment made by the assessee on the stipulated dates. As such, the impugned transactions were pertaining to the barter group. 49. Likewise, the assessee also contended that he has not purchased any piece of land either in his name or in the name of his family members. As such the entire transaction relating to the land was carried out between M/s Neminath Traders Pvt Ltd and 3rdparties. Thus, in such a situation, the question of making any payment to Shri Ashit Haribhai Vora does not arise. 50. It was also submitted by the assessee that he, being a social worker, was involved in resolving the disputes of various parties between the barter group and the 3rd parties being the buyers of the land. Therefore, based on the document found on his premises, bearing page No. 70 of annexure-A1 no adve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....put-forth the figures as jotted down on Pages No.9 & 10 of Annexure A/7 found and seized from the residence of Shri Ashitbhai H. Vora. On comparative study of both these papers, it was noticed that the paper found from appellant's residence contained jottings totaling to Rs.2446.86 whereas the papers found from the residence of Shri Ashit H. Vora and as shown during the course of the assessment proceedings, contained the total of Rs.2446.86 in the first coloumn, and thereafter under appellant's name there is jotting as under in the second column. "Mihirbhai 50 26.06.14 15 27.06.14 5 Cheque Neminath" Thereafter, in the third column the total of first column of 2446.86 has been carried forward and thereafter the same has been enhanced to Rs.2517.86 Thus, in nutshell, the paper found from appellant's residence did not contain any entries, as are mentioned in the second and the third column of the pages found from the residence of Shri Ashit H. Vora. The Jottings showin total of Rs.2446.86 pertains to the third party whose plots were being proposed to be sold through appellant. S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x liability for the purpo.se of deciding whether the seized assets should be seized or retained. The presumption cannot have the effect of excluding or overriding the provisions of s. 69 of the IT Act during the course of regular assessment proceedings. In light of the above, the addition of Rs.70,00,000/- made by the L.d. Assessing Officer deserves, to be deleted. Date 06/02/2018 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX "1.3 The Appellant, at the outset, submits that the reference to section 132(4A) made by the AO in support of his conclusion is totally misconceived. Further the observations made by the AO that certain jottings found in the seized paper No.A-1/70 from the residence of the Appellant matches with the description contained in the papers / diary seized from the premises of Shri Ashit Vora is absolutely wrong and evident from the above documents themselves. The papers seized from the residence of Shri Ashit Vora referred to by the AO in the assessment order are for the period from 25/6/2014 to 28/6/2014 on which dates or even thereabout, no matching transactions are there in the paper seized from the residence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pendent evidence in support of entries in the seized papers which can only lead to determination of undisclosed income." 53. The assessee in support of his contentions discussed above has also referred to various judicial pronouncements which are duly extracted on pages 34 to 38 of the appellant order. 54. The Ld. CIT-A after considering the submission of the assessee called for the remand report from the AO who submitted that all the transactions recorded in the diary are matching with the document found from the premises of the assessee except the payment of Rs. 70,00,000/- which represents the brokerage payment to the assessee. Similar brokerage was also recorded in the impugned diary paid to other brokers namely Nileshbhai Jamnagar, Nitinbhai Jamnagar which was also added in their respective hands and the same addition was confirmed by the Ld. CIT-A (11) in the hands of Shri Nileshbhai by order dated 1st November 2019. Thus, the AO in the remand report vehemently contended that the amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- in relation to the land transaction deal was not received by Shri Ashit Haribhai Vora. It is because such income was the brokerage of the assessee. 55. The assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he AO had not offered any comments on the affidavit of Shri Asit Vora clearly denying any financial involvement of the Appellant in the said land deal. The Appellant submits that the entire conclusion arrived at by the AO is vague and based on his own whims and conjectures without even remote connection with the ground realities. Unfortunately, the AO has grossly misdirected himself, is not deliberately chosen to shake his hands off, from his duty as AO to make any investigation of his own." 56. The Ld. CIT-A after considering the submission of the assessee and the remand report of the AO deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under: " DECISION 14. The grounds of appeal No. 1 to 1.5 are relating to addition of Rs.70,00,000/- treating the same as payment made for purchase of land. 14.1 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the assessment order and the submissions made by the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings. The relevant discussion has been made by the AD at Para 5 of the assessment order A search u/s 132 was carried out on Barter Group including one Shri Asit Vora and certain documents were found from his r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the appellant and a Page 5, he changed his stand and contended that the sale Rs 70,00.000/ is the undisclosed brokerage income of the appellant and the brokerage payment made to Nileshbhal Jamnagar, Nitinbhai Jamnagar and Mihither were not received by Amit Vora. The AO submitted his remand report dated 26.02.2020 to his office and the same was forwarded to the appellant for his comments. 14.4 The appellant filed his rejoinder to remand report and requested for admission of additional evidences and highlighted that as per the contents of the diary seized from the premises of Shri Asit Vora, the alleged Rs 70,00,000/- in the name of Mihirlibal are reflecting on the left side of the account, meaning thereby Shri Asit Vora has received the said amount. Had it been the brokerage pop made to Mihirbhai by Shri Asit Vora as alleged by the AO in his remand region then the same would be reflecting at the debit side and not on the credit side of the seized document. Hence, the observations of the AO as per assessment order and remand report are contradictory in the assessment order the same have been treated as appellant's undisclosed investment but subsequently in the remand p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant has been completed by the AO. Thus on this legal aspect the addition on this account is not tenable in the case of appellant. 14.8 This view has been subscribed and followed from the Recent decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Rajesh Sundardas Vaswani, and Others in a bunch of 107 appeals rendered on 12/11/2020." 57. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT-A, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 58. The Ld. DR before us reiterated the findings contained in the assessment order and supported the view of the AO. 59. On the other hand, the Ld. AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 165 and reiterated the findings contained in the order of the learned CIT-A and vehemently supported the view taken by the learned CIT-A. 60. Both the Ld. DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below as favourable to them. 61. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the foregoing paragraph, we note that the AO in the assessment order has made the addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee on the reasoning that the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s which were matching with the documents recovered from both the parties namely assessee and Shri Ashit Haribhai Vora barring few transactions which were aggregating to Rs. 70,00,000/-. The AO has not made any addition of whatsoever of the transactions which were matching with the seized documents recovered from the premises of the assessee and Shri Ashit Haribhai Vora except the transactions which were not matching. These unmatched transactions represented the sum of Rs. 70,00,000/-. Thus, the dispute before us revolves to the tune of Rs. 70,00,000/- only. Undeniably, the AO has taken contradictory stand in the assessment order and the remand report. The AO in the assessment order has assumed the sum of Rs. 70,00,000/- representing the payment made by the assessee whereas in the remand report it was contended that the sum of Rs. 70,00,000/- represents the commission income in the hands of the assessee. First of all, we note that the transactions recorded in the seized document itself does not represent any income per se until and unless these are corroborated by the other materials or information and these documents read in aggregation of other documents/information. But, in the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....64. The next issue raised by the revenue is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- on account of unexplained credit entries in bank. 65. The necessary facts are that the AO during the assessment proceeding found that the assessee bank account maintained with Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd was credited by Rs. 3 Lacs and Rs. 5 Lacs on 5th March 2014. The AO, in absence of satisfactory explanation regarding the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the depositor treated the same as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and added the same to total income of the assessee. 66. On appeal by the assessee the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under: "16.1 I have perused the assessment order, submission made by the appellant before the AO before this office. I have also gone through the legal decisions furnished by the appellant in this regard. At the outset, it is clear that insufficient opportunity was granted to the appellant before completing the proceedings. The appellant has availed unsecured loans from Paresh N Patel & Paresh N Patel HUF during the year under consideration. The a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rimary onus cast upon the appellant is discharged as identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the depositors is proved." 67. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 68. The Ld. DR before us reiterated the findings contained in the assessment order and supported the view of the AO. 69. On the other hand, the Ld. AR before us reiterated the findings contained in the order of the learned CIT-A and vehemently supported the view taken by the learned CIT-A. 70. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, during the year the bank account of the assessee was credited by Rs. 8 Lakh which was treated as unexplained investment by the AO in the absence of necessary detail. The assessee during the appellate proceeding before the learned CIT-A submitted that same represent receipt of unsecured loan from Paresh N Patel and Paresh N Patel HUF. To this effect the assessee also furnished copy confirmation letter from the parties and copy of their PAN as well as ITR acknowledgment. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee and remand report fr....