TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 1025
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in modifying and enhancing the addition made by the AO, without rebutting the claim of the appellant that: (i) the alleged party wise breakup into 48 parties provided to the appellant vide notice dated 30.10.2019 for explanation is not the verbatim data retrieved from the alleged personal laptop but redesigned, rearranged purposely. (ii) the appellant had neither received nor paid alleged receipts and payments in the nature of investments, expenditure etc. mentioned against alleged parties in the notice dated 30.10.2019. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in law in not appreciating "that the alleged data in Excel worksheets retrieved from said computer as well as recreated 48 ledgers / parties does not qualify to admit as an "evidence" under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872". 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on fact in not appreciating that the additions made by invoking provisions of Section 69A of the Act are bad in law as the appellant has not been f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Ld. AO by ignoring the fact that the case of relevant assessment year has already been concluded u/s 143(3) which could not abate on the date of search and no such additions were made on the basis of any incriminating material found / seized during search action at the premises of the appellant." 3. In ITA No. 1819/Del/2021, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) in modifying and enhancing the addition made by the A.O. from an amount of Rs. 63,50.507/- u/s 69A of the Act to Rs. 3,14,06,822/- (Rs. 2.75,56,842/- as peak credit and Rs. 38,49,980/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C) and confirming addition of Rs 4,20,400/- being adhoc estimated commission income, is unwarranted and is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the leamed CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in modifying and enhancing the addition made by the AO, without rebutting the claim of the appellant that: (i) the alleged party wise breakup into 48 parties provided to the appellant vide notice dated 30.10.2019 for explanation is not the verbatim d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erned parties and also rejecting the contention of the appellant by making opinion that there was no need / requirement of conducting independent enquiries by the Ld. AO from the alleged parties. 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition made / enhanced by the learned AO / CIT(A) is untenable in the eyes of law having been made without providing the opportunity to cross-examine Saurabh Gupta from whose personal laptop the alleged data/ excel sheets retrieved, which was found from the premises of his in-laws, which is the sole basis of making addition in the instant case and without following the principle of natural justice. 10. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on fact by arbitrarily and mechanically holding that proper opportunity of cross examination was provided to the appellant while no such cross examination of the alleged parties/ deponents were provided even though specifically requested by the appellant before both the lower authorities. 11. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in modifying and enhancing additions made by Ld....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in possession of alleged cash which is pre-requisite condition for invoking provisions of Section 69A. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in making separate addition of Rs. 1,08.89.548/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act when all such debit and credit entries alleged to be found recorded in data / excel sheet retrieved from the personal laptop of Shri Saurabh Gupta have already been considered while making peak credit addition by the Ld. CIT(A) which tantamount to double addition and hence bad in law and is kable to be deleted. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on fact by arbitrarily and mechanically discrediting Affidavits of the concerned parties and also rejecting the contention of the appellant by making opinion that there was no need / requirement of conducting independent enquiries by the Ld. AO from the alleged parties. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition made / enhanced by the learned AO/CIT(A) is untenable in the eyes of law having been made without providing the opportunity to cross-examine Saurabh Gupta from whose p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leged personal laptop but redesigned, rearranged purposely. (ii) the appellant had neither received nor paid alleged receipts and payments in the nature of investments, expenditure etc. mentioned against alleged parties in the notice dated 30.10.2019. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in law in not appreciating "that the alleged data in Excel worksheets retrieved from said computer as well as recreated 48 ledgers / parties does not qualify to admit as an "evidence" under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872". 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on fact in not appreciating that the additions made by invoking provisions of Section 69A of the Act are bad in law as the appellant has not been found in possession of alleged cash which is pre-requisite condition for invoking provisions of Section 69A. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in making separate addition of Rs. 15.23.979/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act when all such debit and credit entries alleged to be found recorded in data / excel sheet re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowing the principle of natural justice. 12. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on fact by arbitrarily and mechanically holding that proper opportunity of cross examination was provided to the appellant while no such cross examination of the alleged parties/ deponents were provided even though specifically requested by the appellant before both the lower authorities. 13. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in modifying and sustaining additions made by Ld. AO by ignoring the fact that such additions were made on the basis of un-authenticated seized document which were not found from the premises of the appellant during search action u/s 132 of the Act and hence, bad in law and is outside the scope of proceedings u/s 153A of the Act. 14. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in modifying additions made by Ld. AO by ignoring the fact that the no such additions were made on the basis of any incriminating material found / seized during search action at the premises of the appellant." 6. In ITA No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the claim of appellant that it has not pad aged amount of Rs. 17,00,00,000 for purchase of house at E-24, Preet Vihar without adducing any corroborative evidence on record which could prove that the same was actually paid by the appellant and without conducting independent enquiry or getting valuation of the said property from approved Get valuer even though specifically requested by the appellant. 7. Without prejudice to the Ground of Appeal No. 6 the leamed CIT(A) has erred both facts & in law in not considering the amount of Rs. 17,00,00,000 alleged to be paid for purchase of house at E24, Preet Vihar in peak credit calculation. 8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on fact in confirming addition of Rs 560/- made by AO by ad-hoc estimating commission income at 2% of the alleged accommodation entries as per the unsubstantiated data/ excel sheet allegedly retrieved from the personal laptop of Shri Saurabh Gupta, merely on the basis of assumption and presumption 9. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the Learned CIT(A) himself has made peak credit addition in the case of appellant by conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....O. from an amount of Rs. 27,45,37,948/- u/s 69A of the Act to Rs. 4,41,95,030/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C and confirming addition of Rs. 2,03,000/- being ad-hoc estimated commission income, is unwarranted and is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts. 2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in modifying and sustaining the addition made by the AO, without rebutting the claim of the appellant that (1) the alleged party wise breakup into 48 parties provided to the appellant vide notice dated 30.10.2019 for explanation is not the verbatim data retrieved from the alleged personal laptop but redesigned, rearranged purposely. (ii) the appellant had neither received nor paid alleged receipts and payments in the nature of investments, expenditure etc. mentioned against alleged parties in the notice dated 30.10.2019 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in law in not appreciating that the alleged data in Excel worksheets retrieved from said computer as well as recreated 48 ledgers / parties does not qualify to admit as an "evidence" under section 65B of the Indian ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tant case and without following the principle of natural justice. 10. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on fact by arbitrarily and mechanically holding that proper opportunity of cross examination was provided to the appellant while no such cross examination of the alleged parties/ deponents were provided even though specifically requested by the appellant before both the lower authorities. 11. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in modifying additions made by Ld. AO by ignoring the fact that the no such additions were made on the basis of any incriminating material found/seized during search action at the premises of the appellant. 12. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in arbitrarily and mechanically invoking deeming provisions of Section 69C read with Section 115BBE of the Act on addition made on account of unexplained expenditure without considering the fact that said expenses would even otherwise, qualify as business expenditure on which provisions of Section 115BBE is not applicable 13. That on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sheet retrieved from the personal laptop of Shri Saurabh Gupta have already been considered while making peak credit addition by the Ld. CIT(A) which tantamount to double addition and hence bad in law and is liable to be deleted. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred both on facts & in law in not appreciating the claim of the appellant that it has not paid alleged amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as advance to Best View Properties without adducing any corroborative evidence on record which could prove that the same was actually paid by the appellant and without conducting independent enquiry even though specifically requested by the appellant. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on fact in confirming addition of Rs 2,71,000/- made by AO by ad-hoc estimating commission income at 2% of the alleged accommodation entries as per the unsubstantiated data/ excel sheet allegedly retrieved from the personal laptop of Shri Saurabh Gupta, merely on the basis of assumption and presumption." 9. The issue involved in ITA Nos. 1204 to 1206/Del/2022 are similar they were heard together and being adju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in ITA No. 57/Del/2022 are as under: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,95,52,573/- out of total addition of Rs. 17,49,29,190/- made on account of unaccounted cash received. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts relying on peak credit / highest credit while computing addition made on account of unaccounted cash received by considering that the nature of transactions made by the assessee are similar to that of an Entry Operator. In the assessment order in Para 6.1, the assessing officer distinguished the assesee's modus operandi different from the entry operator. So, the case laws relied upon the Ld. CIT(A) is not applicable on the facts of the assessee. Hence, peak credit / highest credit for unaccounted income is not applicable in this case as relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A)." 11. The assessee, a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 is a registered stock broker at National Stock Exchange (NSE) & Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and engaged in trading in shares, securities, derivatives, currency, futures & option (F&O), etc., through algorithmic trading, ie, automatic trading through s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eipts and payments as the undisclosed income of the assessee for the entire period of assessment u/s 153A. 15. The year-wise amount of unaccounted income determined is as under: A.Y. Receipts Payments Amount 2012-13 91,03,889 37,500 90,66,389 2013-14 63,50,507 - 63,50,507 2014-15 61,56,250 52,35,339 9,20,911 2015-16 10,04,91,000 4,71,90,617 5,33,00,383 2016-17 17,84,79,190 35,50,000 17,49,29,190 2017-18 27,85,87,948 40,50,000 27,45,37,948 2018-19 7,73,72,310 41,31,000 7,32,41,310 Total 65,65,41,094 6,41,94,456 59,23,46,638 16. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer has also determined the unaccounted investment made by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 34,14,38,880/-. The details of unaccounted investment as per the material available before the Assessing Officer is as under: Particulars Amount Investment in E-24 17,00,00,000 Renovation of 504, common wealth games 41,88,000 Expenses made in Mumbai & Kolkata Office 3,73,60,136 Advance given to Best View Properties 1,00,00,000 Payment to Omega Securities 23,05,580 Payment to OFT / Option Fintech 5,13,60,300 Misc Office & Personal + Office Personal Receipts/Payments 5,16,76,727....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the ld. CIT(A). The crux of the arguments is as under: (i) Alleged data or excel sheets allegedly retrieved from the personal laptop of Saurabh Gupta found from the premises of his in-laws, but wrongfully recorded in the Panchnama drawn of Premises of Saurabh Gupta at 3031/I, 3rd Floor, Old Ranjeet Nagar, Street No 4. Delhi, does not belong to the appellant company and the data contained therein also does not pertain to the appellant company. The alleged data, excel sheets is incorrect, inflated, corrupt. manipulated or may be recorded in haphazard manner with malafide intention. The alleged retrieved soft data / excel sheets breakup into 1 to 48 parties/ledgers attached at Pages 66 to 166 of the notice dated 30.10.2019 given to the appellant to explain, had been created, arranged, categorized by the Department and is not the verbatim data or transactions contained in excel sheets allegedly retrieved from the personal laptop of Saurabh Gupta and thus not reliable. It contained various duplicate and multiple entries which exaggerate the amount of receipts and payments column of party wise breakup of soiled data multiple times. (ii) The appellant also furnished detailed explanati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The impugned assessment order has been passed by merely relying upon ex -party details/ data belonging to third party, that too, without allowing opportunity of cross-examination the appellant. Addition has been made on account of alleged receipt of cash, merely on the basis of suspicion, that too, on the basis of unsubstantiated/ unreliable/ unauthentic third-party data, not corroborated by actual movement/receipt of cash. Allegation or unaccounted investment/expenditure, too, is on basis or suspicion, not corroborated by actual movement/ payment of cash. (vi) Alleged soft data/ excel sheets which are the sole basis of making addition in the hands of the appellant- a) not an incriminating material which was found & seized during the course of search at the premises of the appellant b) neither pertain to the appellant company nor alleged personal laptop of Shri Saurabh Gupta belongs to the appellant company. (vii) The alleged laptop was found from the premises of in-laws of Shri Saurabh Gupta, but recorded in the Panchnama drawn of Premises. of Saurabh Gupta at 3031/ 1, 3rd Floor, Old Ranjeet Nagar, Street No 4, Delhi. Hence, the alleged laptop was a personal laptop or Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the given date which can be verified from the visitor register maintained at the entry gate. However, Shri Saurabh Gupta was not present there for his cross-examination. Hence cross examination of Saurabh Gupta could not take place/ materialize. However, the AO in the impugned assessment order mentioned that "Cross Examination of Sh. Saurabh Gupta has been provided to the assessee but the assessee did not turn up on the appointed date to cross examine Sh. Saurabh Gupta" which is factually incorrect and wrong. It is also pertinent to mention here that no opportunity for cross- examination was thereafter given to the appellant by the AO. The AO was also the jurisdictional assessing officer of Shri Saurabh Gupta and was well aware of the tact that Sh. Saurabh Gupta had sought an adjournment on medical ground on the given date i.e., 24.12.2019 by filing a letter dated 24.12.2019 before the AO. The said fact confirmed by Sh. Saurabh Gupta to the appellant company. (xii) On verification of the soft data of the alleged excel sheet provided to the appellant company, it was noticed that they contained various working / noting in different manner in various excel sheets of the same amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....penses of OPG' Securities Private Limited.. Further, on first instance after seeing printouts taken by the Department of these excel sheets, Shri Sanjay Gupta given the same answer in response to several questions that these transactions appear to be office related expenses of OPG Securities Private Limited, which are in the nature or day to day expenses. (xviii) It is settled principle when a document / evidence / statement is being relied upon, a portion of it cannot he disregarded on the whims and fancies of a person. Reliance was placed upon following decisions: a) Provash Chandra Dalui v. BisIrvanath Banerjee AIR 1989 SC 1834 (SC) b) Commissioner of-income Tax v Sodra Devi [1957] 32 1TR 615 (SC) c) Glass Lines Equipment Co. Ltd. v Commissioner of income Tax [2002] 253 1TR 454 (HC - Gujarat) d) Prabhudayal Agarwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax [2007] 11 SOT 50 (Hyderabad)(URO)/[2006] 104 TTJ 574 (ITAT - Hyderabad) e) Narayan Prasad Vijaivargiya v Commissioner of Income tax [1976] 102 TTR 748 (HC - Calcutta) (xix) As per provisions of Section 132(4A) / 292C of the Act, the presumption can only be postulated in respect of that person in whose possessio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....per book] found from his residential premises and stated that several transactions recorded in diary of Gaurav Gupta matched with transactions recorded in Excel sheets. However, on perusal of the said pages, it appears to be containing rough noting / jottings etc, for own use or reference of Gaurav Gupta and no transaction were found to be matching exactly with the transactions referred of alleged excel sheets. (xxiv) The appellant has not received or paid any amount in cash as mentioned in receipts and payments column of 48 parties / ledgers which were rearranged / regrouped / categorized by the AO/ Department. The appellant had also requested the AO to directly verify whether any receipts payment in cash from / to were made from concerned parties or not and if any contrary statement is given then provide the same for rebuttal and also afford an opportunity of cross-examination or the concerned parties to the appellant, however, no such exercise was carried out by the AO to rebut the claim of the appellant that it has not paid or received any cash as alleged by the AO. (xxv) The laptop undisputedly belonged to Sh. Saurabh Gupta and not the appellant and therefore, it is only M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....form of cash money, bullion, and the AO has completely failed to adduce any corroborative evidence either found or seized during search or collected by conducting independent enquiry. (xxix) The appellant in support of its claim that it has not paid or received any cash in respect of transactions with Sanjay Singhal (Paandan) has furnished affidavit of Shri Sanjay Singhal (Paandan) confirming that he or / and his family member neither received / nor paid any amount in cash from / to M/s OPG Securities Private Limited. The appellant also furnished affidavit of M/s Rajyog Buildtech Private Limited confirming that no cash was either paid or received by M/s Rajyog Buildtech Private Limited from the assessee and / or vice versa in respect of booking of Commercial space by the appellant company for which advance of Rs. 15.50 Crore was paid. (xxx) The AO in support of his conclusion in Para No. 6 of the assessment order mentioned some arbitrary modus operandi alleged to be adopted by the appellant company and its associates regarding trading into securities by the appellant and its clients. The Ld. AO also alleged that the appellant is having un- natural advantages (co-location of ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....could prove that the alleged amount of Rs. 59.23 crore was received in cash and the appellant company is found to be in possession of the said alleged cash of Rs. 59.23 crore as per the provisions of Section 69A of the Act. Therefore, arbitrary addition of Rs. 59,23,46,638/- for all the seven assessment year (i.e. 201213 to 2018-19) and Rs. 90,66,389/- for the assessment year under consideration is bad in law and is liable to be deleted. Reliance was place upon following decisions: a) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ravi Kumar [2008] 168 Taxman 150 (HC - Punjab & Haryana) b) Income Tax Officer-19(3)(3) v Shri Parvez Mohammed Hussain Ghaswala 2015 (10) TM1 2575 ( ITAT - Mumbai) c) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax v M/s. Karthik Construction Co. ITAno.2292/Mum./2016 (ITAT - Mumbai) d) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anoop Jain [2019] 112 taxmann.com 355 (HC-Delhi) (xxxiv) Shri Sanjay Singhal is a client of the appellant company who is having trading account with the appellant company in his own name and in the name of his partnership concern M/s Balagi Agencies as follows: Client Name Client code PAN Address Sanjay Singhal "CSAS" ACTPA6039Q 9-10, Saraswati Kunj,8,A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made without independent/ corroborative evidence is not permissible in law [refer K.P. Verghese v ITO: 31 ITR 597 (SC)], Reliance was also placed upon following decisions: a) Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT: 37 ITR 288 b) CBI vs. V.C. ShukIa. &Ors.(supra) c) Common Cause vs. Union of India (supra) (xxxvii) Reliance was also placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that any allegation of movement of money must be corroborated by actual evidence supporting such allegation for making addition. a) P V. Kalyansundaram: 282 ITR 259 (Mad.) affirmed in 294 ITR 49 (SC) b) Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary: 169 Taxman 130 c) CIT vs Sumeet Verma: 145 DLT 280 (Del) d) Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT: 86 ITD 13 (Del TM) e) ShankerlalNebnumal (HUF) V. DC1T: 80 TTJ 69 (Ahd.) f) Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT V. Jivanlal Nebhumal (HUF):182 CTR370 g) Kences Foundation (P) Limited: 289 ITR 509 (Mad) h) SP Goval vs. DCIT. 82 ITD 85 (Mum.) (TM) i) Nem Chand Dagar v. ACIT: [2004] 1 SOT 515 (Del) j) Dinesh K. Shah: 92 TTJ 109 (Bang.) k) Ramesh K. Shah v. DCIT: 82 TTJ 827 (Bang.) l) Calcu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out by the appellant, peak credit theory may be applied in such case to avoid double addition. The basic idea behind the peak credit theory is to avoid double addition and to bring only the actual income of the assessee where there are large number of unexplained credit and debit entries and it is not possible to work out the exact quantum of undisclosed income by adducing some cogent or relevant material on record. Reliance was placed upon following judgments: a) Commissioner of income-tax- III Vs. Tirupati Construction Co. [2015] 55 taxmann.com 308 (High Court of Gujarat) b) Income Tax Officer, Delhi Vs. Shri Arun Kumar Tiwari; Asst. Yr 2007-08; (2011) 1TA NO. 4294(Del)/2010 (ITAT- Delhi) c) Om Prakash Agarwal Vs, ACIT; (2016) IT A Nos. 721 to 726/JP/2015 [1TAT -Jaipur] d) Income-tax Officer Vs. Bharat Plasto Chem (P.) Ltd. [2015] 58 taxman.com 296 (ITAT - Chandigarh) e) Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. Central Circle-I. Baroda Vs. Jayesh Finance [2014] 41 taxmann.com 323 (ITAT - Ahmedabad) f) Commissioner of Income-tax -VI, Hyderabad Vs. Purushottam Jhadhav [2013] 40 taxman.com 533 (High Court - Andhra Pradesh) ii. The appellant furnished working of Peak credi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce the AO had made addition on account of entire source of Rs. 59.23 crore, so he had not made addition on account of alleged application/ utilization of said fund into alleged unexplained investments / expenditure separately to avoid double taxation of same income. vii. When the peak credit theory is applied after considering all the unexplained debit and credit entries (i.e. inclusive of unexplained income and unexplained investment / unexplained expenditure) alleged to be found recorded in a personal laptop of Shri Saurabh Gupta which was found and seized from the premises of third person and is strictly disputed repudiated by the appellant as nor pertaining to it, so no separate addition warranted on account of addition of Rs. 34 cr. in assets / expenditure on account of application of unaccounted receipts which the AO himself has not added separately to avoid double taxation of same income. We rely on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax -VI, Hyderabad v. Purushottam Jhawar [2013] 40 taxmann.com 533 wherein it has been held that when followed the peak credit concept, there is no need to make any sepa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the soft data of the alleged excel sheet provided to the appellant company, it is noticed that they contained various working/noting in different manner in various excel sheets of the same amount and date. This clearly shows that there are various multiple and duplicate entries/ working/ noting of the same amount and on same date in various excel sheets of the said alleged personal laptop of Shri Saurabh Gupta. The AO on considering the claim of the appellant that it has contained various duplicate and banking entries has show cause with revised figure of receipts and payments of Rs. 164,77,58,334/- and Rs. 161,96,48,112/- respectively may not be added to the income of the appellant company. ii. The appellant without admitting the entries in alleged excel data retrieved from the personal laptop of Shri Saurabh Gupta which was seized during search action stated in alternate that in case of unexplained credit and debit entries and nothing has been brought on record which could prove that the same has been carried out by the appellant, the peak credit theory may be applied by the department to avoid double addition. The appellant has furnished working of peak credit which worked ou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessee must be computed taking all unaccounted receipts and payments in totality, since all these unaccounted transactions are in cash, the possibility of cash being rotated cannot be ruled out. 28. In view of above facts, detailed arguments of the assessee as well as judicial decisions given above, the ld. CIT(A) held that benefit of peak is required to be given in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, peak amount taxable in the hands of the assessee and verified in person by the ld. CIT(A) and determined it to be Rs. 19,86,12,311/-. 29. The year wise peak is held to be as follows: A.Y. Receipts Payments Cumulative Maximum Running Balance Year wise break-up of Peak AY 2012-13 94,27,839 3,72,500 90,92,839 91,30,339 AY 2013-14 7,99,23,940 7,29,18,701 3,66,49,681 2,75,56,842 AY 2014-15 9,11,71,860 8,20,21,844 3,71,01,329 4,51,648 AY 2015-16 54,52,18,839 50,05,88.755 7,65,78,368 3,94,77,039 AY 2016-17 29,30,25,443 20,28,17,056 19,85,74,811 12,19,96,443 AY 2017-18 39,18,69,615 40,12,21,900 17,30,08,376 N/A AY 2018-19 16,41,72,153 18,01,56,518 16,00,20,841 N/A Total (A) 157,48,09,689 144,00,97,274 19,86,12,311 30. The ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have been found out. The excel sheets reflect receipts, payments and expenditure. The expenditure as found in the excel sheets as determined by the Assessing Officer and allowed by the Assessing Officer is as under: S. No. Particulars Amount 1. Investment in E-24 17,00,00,000 2. Renovation of 504, common wealth games 41,88,000 3. Expenses made in Mumbai & Kolkata Office 3,73,60,136 4 Advance given to Best View Properties 1,00,00,000 5. Payment to Omega Securities 23,05,580 6. Payment to OFT / Option Fintech 5,13,60,300 7. Misc Office & Personal + Office Receipts/Payments Personal 5,16,76,727 8. Salary Payments 85,48,140 9. Paid to Vinay Jain 60,00,000 Total 34,14,38,883 35. We find that the investment in E-24 of Rs. 17,00,00,000/- has been made in the name of Sh. Sanjay Gupta and the property has been duly registered in his name. The investment in property cannot be said to be a part of the expenditure incurred for earning of the income. Since, Sh. Sanjay Gupta is the owner of the property and all the documents are in the position of the revenue authorities, the same should have been rightly taxed in the hands of Sh. Sanjay Gupta. We make i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Sh. Saurabh Gupta whose data was corrupt is bad in law and should not be sustained. The ld. AR has also drawn our attention to Pages 352 & 363 of Paper book of AY 2012-13 and vehemently argued that excel sheets on the basis of which additions was made cannot be qualified to as admissible evidence as the laptop from which the said excel sheets was found was the personal laptop of Saurabh Gupta as admitted by him and which is also evident from the fact that one of the excel sheets named "ledger" found to be modified on 15th November, 2017 12:20:08 AM i.e., before the start of search on 15.11.2017 in the early morning at 7 A.M. at the premises of appellant. The ld. AR has drawn our attention to Page No 36 of assessment order of AY 2012-13 and submitted that the data retrieved from excel sheets is corrupt and not reliable and not admissible as evidence which is evident from the fact that Assessing Officer himself stated on said page that the amount of Rs 40,00,00,000/- has been erroneously mentioned in place of an amount of Rs 4,00,00,000/-. 39. These arguments are found to be against the facts on record and the panchnama drawn. The panchnama drawn on the date of search clearly es....