TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 1025
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd 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 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 invok....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred) both on facts & in law in modifying and enhancing additions made by 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: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... should be sustained. 8. 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. 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 r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dence 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. 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 independe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in modifying 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 found in possession o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition made / modified 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. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1,33,80,174 an unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act when all such debt and credit entries alleged to be found den 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 be to be deleted. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in not appreciating 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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." 7. In ITA No. 1823/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 the addition made by the A.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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting 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. 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition made / modified 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as an "evidence" under section 658 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. 4,08,39,093/- 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 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1(1)(c) of the Act is not tenable in law as the judicial pronouncements relied on by the learned CIT(A) are distinguishable on the facts of the case. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts & in law in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on addition enhanced by him being the additions made / modified/ enhanced on the basis of alleged data in Excel worksheets retrieved from laptop as well as recreated 48 ledgers / parties, does not qualify to admit as an "evidence" under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872." 10. The issue involved in ITA Nos. 57 to 59/Del/2022 are similar, they were heard together and being adjudicated by a common order. The grounds raised by the Revenue 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iod of assessment u/s 153A was Rs. 164,77,58,330/- and total payments were to the tune of Rs. 161,96,48,112/-. The Assessing Officer after examination of the inflow and outflow and after eliminating the repeated, duplicate entries collated the excel sheets into 7 main heads and tabulated the receipts and payments depicted as under: S. No. Heads Receipt Payment 1. Paandan 31,15,89,836 5,57,95,819 2. Paandan 15,50,00,000 - 3. Kuber Securities(KS) 14,98,71,730 50,000 4. Sanjay Garg 1,50,00,000 80,00,000 5. Rajinder Gupta 79,91,000 3,44,637 6. Mamta Jain 1,30,00,000 4,000 7. Richa Arneja 40,88,528 - Total 65,65,41,094 6,41,94,456 14. The Assessing Officer determined an amount of Rs. 59,23,46,638/- being the difference between the receipts 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 52,3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 13.08.2021 has confirmed the addition made by the AO to the tune of the peak credits and deleted the addition equivalent to the amount which is the rotation of the monies. Thus, the addition made of the difference between the receipts and payments of Rs. 59.23 Cr. was re-determined by the ld. CIT(A) resorting to the peak theory and determined the undisclosed amount to Rs. 19.86 Cr. While doing so, the ld. CIT(A) considered the entire receipts at Rs. 157,48,09,680/- and payments of Rs. 144,00,97,270/- as against the receipts determined by the AO of Rs. 65,65,41,090/- and payments of Rs. 6,41,94,456/-. 23. Aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee as well as the Revenue filed appeal before us. 24. During the hearing before us, the ld. DR relied the order of the Assessing Officer and the ld. AR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) to the extent of relief accorded. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions taken up before the ld. CIT(A). The crux of the arguments is as under: (i) Alleged data or excel sheets allegedly retrieved from the persona....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ieved from the personal laptop of Saurabh Gupta and without prejudice to above contention, the appellant has also submitted vide its letter dated 31.12.2019 Affidavits of Shri Sanjay Singhal and M/s Rajyog Buildtech Private Limited confirming the fact that no cash was/ is either paid to or received by them from the appellant. (iv) The Assessing Officer erroneously held that the appellant did not cross-examine Saurabh Gupta whereas Shri O. P. Gupta, Director of the appellant company, personally appeared before the learned assessing officer on the said date i.e. 24.12.2019 while Saurabh Gupta tailed to turn up for cross examination and also without considering the Affidavits of concerned parties filed by the appellant confirming that no such cash was paid to or received from M/s OPG Securities Private Limited. (v) The impugned assessment has been completed de-hors any incriminating material/ document found/seized during the course of search conducted in the case of the appellant, which is contrary to the very concept of assessment of search under section 153A of the Act. The impugned assessment order has been passed by merely relying upon ex -party details/ data bel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ets/ data alleged to be pertaining to the appellant company, were modified by him or by someone else in the midnight of the 15th November, 2017. (x) The alleged laptop was never in the control and/or custody of any of the Directors of the appellant company and it is emphatically denied that any entries were made or directed to be made by Shri O.P. Gupta and/or Shri Sanjay Gupta, Directors of the appellant company. It is a matter of fact that Shri O P Gupta is aged more than 76 years and he does not know how to operate computer system/ laptop, so the statement of Shri Saurabh Gupta, is factually incorrect and hence, not reliable and the appellant company disputes and denies the contents of the data as recorded in the alleged laptop and the said alleged data does not pertain to the appellant company. (xi) The AO vide Summons dated 20.12.2019 issued under section 131 of the Act to the appellant company offered the opportunity for cross-examination of Saurabh Gupta at 4 P.M. on 24.12.2019 at his office. Sh. O P Gupta, Director of the appellant company in compliance of the said Summons duly attended the office of the Ld, AO on the given date which can be verified from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat of his minor on and he took the same to office for virus removal, thereby, admitting that the data therein was corrupted and unreliable. (xv) The AO had sought explanation from the appellant company in respect of transactions mentioned in 48 parties / ledgers categorized by him on the basis of alleged Excel worksheets by mentioning different amounts in the same notice dated 30.10.2019. (xvi) The alleged amount mentioned in receipts and payments column on pages 66 to 166 of the notice dated 30/10/2019. the nature of the amount mentioned in receipts payments column has not been described/ specified by the AO i.e. whether the said alleged unaccounted receipts/payments were made by / to the appellant company in the nature of profit/ loss or bank / cash or trading / margin or balancing figure / transaction amount, etc (xvii) The said assertion made by the AO is factually incorrect as Shri Sanjay Gupta in his statement recorded under section 131(1A) of the Act on 12.06.2018 has not admitted "that some of the transactions found in the excel sheets pertained to him or his group companies" rather he stated that these transactions appear to be office related ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt. (xxi) The alleged diary was maintained by Gaurav Gupta., Accounts Executive of the appellant company and he might be used to record certain day to day noting for his reference. Thus the said diary of Gaurav Gupta contained day to day noting, jottings, to do job / work, contact no., email ids, several other details etc, for his own use. (xxii) When Saurabh Gupta and Gaurav Gupta both are real brothers and employees of M/s OPG Securities Private Limited, then why Shri OP Gupta and Sanjay Gupta, Directors of the appellant company used to call personal laptop of Saurabh Gupta, designated to general maintenance & housekeeping work of the appellant company, to copy financial data of their company instead of Gaurav Gupta who is an Account Executive and know the value of business and its proposed or executed financial transactions. (xxiii) The AO to substantiated his contention that transactions reflected in the said alleged. Excel worksheets (retrieved from the personal laptop of Saurabh Gupta) pertaining to the appellant company referred certain transactions (for the period 13.12.2016 to 25.10.2017) on the alleged Excel worksheets and Page no. 14, 45, 57, 7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (xxvii) On considering Section 34 of the Evidence Act, it is evident that entries in the books of account is relevant only when the books of account regularly kept in the course of business While in the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the alleged laptop is a personal laptop of Saurabh Gupta and is not at all forming part of assets of the appellant company. Further, there is no corroborative evidence on record which could prove that the entries in said alleged Excel Sheet were kept or recorded by the appellant on regular basis in the course of business, therefore in absence of any clear finding that the transactions / entries in alleged Excel Sheet were regularly kept in the course of business of the appellant company cannot be admissible as evidence for making addition in the hands of the appellant company. The alleged data in Excel Work sheets and rearranging/ re-grouping of the same into 48 ledgers / parties does not qualify any of the condition as mentioned in sub section (2) of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (xxviii) Pre- requisite condition for invoking provisions of section 69A of the Act has not been met, being the appellant is not found....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gnized stock exchanges over which there is no control of the appellant company. (xxxi) There is no material to suggest that the appellant got alleged unaccounted cash while during the extensive search operation under section 132 of the Act which was carried out at more than 60 premises of the appellant, its group concerns and its associates and various other parties across 6 States and nothing was found & seized to suggest that the appellant is the owner of the alleged receipts in cash. (xxxii) It was incumbent upon the AO to make inquiries in the matter to substantiate the veracity of the said alleged data / excel sheets allegedly retrieved from die personal laptop and bring on record cogent material / evidences to establish that any cash was received by the appellant. Reliance was place upon following decisions: a) D.C.I.T vs. M/s Angel Infra 2020 (3)TMI 1196(TT'AT - Ahmedabad) b) Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V. Maulikkumar K. Shah 2007 (7) TMI 267 (307 ITR 137) c) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Orissa Corporation, 159 VTR 7S (SC) d) Riveria Properties (P) Ltd. v Income Tax Offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ofit of Rs. 5,63,30,4051/- on trading in F&O during the period of 7 years i.e. financial years 2011-12 to 2017-18 on which it had paid STT, Stamp duty, SEBI fee and GST /Service Tax amounting to Rs. 8,55,52,915/- which amounts to 152% (approx.) of the profit earned from trading in derivatives and also paid income @30.90% on profit earned from trading in derivatives / F&O. The appellant further submitted that no prudent person just to earn profit of Rs. 5 crone would pay taxes to revenue authorities which comprising 152% of the profit earned and also paid cash of Rs. 53,37,84,581/- to the appellant company. (xxxv) As regard to transactions mentioned in these e-malls exchanged between e-mails id of the appellant company and e-mail id of Sudhanshu Pradhan, employee of Sanjay Singhal in the impugned assessment order, it is submitted that "amount mentioned in attachment of these e-mails under the description "RECD" while trading into scrip "KDTWL" which alleged to be not found recorded in the books of account of Sanjay Singhal, it is submitted that the nature and reason of the same to non recording or these amount can be explained by Shri Sanjay Singhal only. (xxxvi) T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te information received from any third party unless an opportunity of cross examination is granted to the appellant. Reliance was also placed upon following decisions: a) Commissioner of Income Tax-7, New Delhi v. Odeon Builders (P.) Ltd [2019] 110 taxmann.com 64 (SC) b) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Uni Packs (India) [2019] 108 taxmann.com 454 (HC - Bombay) c) H.R. Mehta v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai [2016] 72 taxmann.com 110 (HC - Bombay) d) Andaman Timber Industries v Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata -11 [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (Supreme Court) e) Commissioner of Income Tax v Sunil Aggarwal (2015) 64 taxmann.com 107 (HC-Delhi) f) Commissioner of Income Tax v Jindal Vegetables Products Limited [2009] 315 TTR 265 (High Court - Delhi) g) Commissioner of Income Tax v Rajesh Kumar [2008] 306 ITR 27 (HC - Delhi) h) Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, Jaipur v. Smt. Sunita Dhadda 2017 (7) TMT 1164 i) Supreme Court in the Case of Union of India v Tulsiram Patel AIR 1985 SC 1416 j) A K Kraipak v Union of India AIR [1970] SC 150 (Supreme Court) k) State of K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Department/ AO into 48 ledgers / parties was having date-wise entries. iv. All debit and credit entries compiled together with running balance of net of debit & credit entries for calculation of peak credit / highest credit which runs into consecutive seven financial years, then in such circumstances for calculation of year wise peak credit, the peak offered in one financial year is to be given credit in next financial year as it has already been added as additional income in the last financial year, otherwise it will amount to double and / or multiple addition of the same amount which is bad in law. v. If the credit of previous year is not given in the current year then same amount will be added multiple times and aggregate amount of addition for all the seven years will be much more than the peak of Rs. 19,85,74,811/-, after eliminating various entries reflected in ledger annexurised as "E-24 Preet Vihar" and "504, Commonwealth Games Village" and various accepted entries by the AO in order dated 31.12.2019, which is bad in law. vi. No separate addition was warranted in the case of application of fund while considering Peak Credit theory. The AO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f fund towards alleged expenses of Rs. 7,99,13,621/- and application of fund towards assets of Rs. 16,44,83,500/- and advance given to Best view Properties of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-aggregating to Rs. 17,44,83,500/- against peak credit of Rs. 19,85,74,811/- is quite justified and no further addition warranted in the case of appellant company. ix. The AO alleged merely on the basis of investigation of SEBI - Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Delloite report without considering the facts of the case of the appellant company that the appellant is having un- natural advantages (co-location of servers, algorithmic trading facility etc.) by which the appellant was able to run a parallel unaccounted business. The above said alleged investigation / report is for the period prior to 31.03.2014 and not for any other years thereafter. Further, during investigation. SEBI itself absolved the appellant from most of the charges of undue advantage of collocation facility and fixed some charges appeal against which is pending for adjudication at Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT). 26. The assessee has submitted reply dated 03.08.2021 before CIT(A) which is summarized below: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith running balance of net of debit & credit entries for calculation of peak credit / highest credit which runs into consecutive seven financial years, then in such circumstances for calculation of year wise peak credit, the peak considered in one financial year is to be given credit in next financial year as it has already been added as additional income in the last financial year, otherwise it will amount to double and / or multiple addition of the same amount which is bad in law." 27. After considering the seized material, Assessment Order, arguments of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) held that the excel sheets seized from laptop of Sh. Saurabh Gupta contained details of 48 parties. The Assessing Officer has excluded entries recorded in the case of 40 parties in most of which expenses recorded were more than the receipts. In respect of 48 parties, as per final show cause dated 12.12.2019, total receipts were Rs. 164,77,58,334/- and total payments were Rs. 161,96,48,112/-. The Assessing Officer made addition on the basis of entries of only 7 parties whose total receipts were Rs. 65,65,41,094/- and total payments were only Rs. 6,41,94,456/- which tends to give a biased picture aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....addition of the same amount which is bad in law. The claim of the assessee found to be correct by the ld. CIT(A) and the benefit of incremental peak was allowed to the assessee in view of facts and based on the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of K. P. Abdul Majeed Vs. ACIT [2019] 109 taxmann.com 385 (Kerala). 31. The ld. CIT(A) has applied the theory of peak credit and made peak amount taxable of Rs. 19,86,12,311/- in the hands of appellant by considering all the receipt and payment entries mentioned in excel sheets retrieved from the laptop of Saurabh Gupta categorized by Assessing Officer in 48 Heads. 32. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is affirmed on the determination of undisclosed income of Rs. 19,86,12,311/-. 33. The ld. CIT(A) has further dealt with the amount of Rs 34,14,38,883/- for which no separate addition was made by the AO. However, the ld. CIT(A) has made addition of certain expenditures of Rs 11,50,12,654/- out of total amount of Rs 34,14,38,883/-. Year wise details of which is as under: Assessment year Addition confirmed Total unexplained Expenditure Omega Securities OFT/Option Fintech Miscellaneous Office and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts has also been taxed in the hands of different assessees namely, Kuber Securities, Sh. Sanjay Garg, Sh. Rajendera Gupta, Ms. Mamta Jain, Ms. Richa Arneja. The expenditure incurred at serial no. 2 & 3 as depicted in the table above pertains to Renovation of Flat No. 504, at Common Wealth Games Village which is an asset of the assessee company and Expenses made in Mumbai & Kolkata Offices are can be considered as unaccounted expenses made out of the unaccounted income earned and determined. Similarly, the payments made to Omega Securities, OFT/Option Fintech, miscellaneous office and personal, salary payments and payments made to Sh. Vinay Jain which are the part of receipts of Rs. 157,48,09,680/- and payment of Rs. 144,00,97,270/- stands interpolated in the determination of unaccounted income of Rs. 19,86,12,311/-. 37. No separate addition on account of expenditure such as office maintenance, software expenses, salary payments made for earning of unaccounted income of Rs. 19,86,12,311/- is required to be made on account of expenditure. The order of the Assessing Officer is affirmed on this issue. 38. The arguments of the ld. AR of the assessee that the laptop from which all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income earned out of trading by the assessee, Short Term Capital Gains has been obtained by the assessee from normal accommodation entry operators and has given it back to its clients. In respect of such transactions, the assessee has acted as a facilitator for providing accommodation entry and commission as per prevailing market rate @ 2% of the amount is therefore taxed by the AO. 41. The evidences found and seized during the search are as under: 8,30,78,221 7,01,01,964 BKS 56,50,000 1,87,16,840 PRAVEEN JAIN 1,05,00,000 1,00,00,000 VIKAS JAIN/KSN 1,35,50,000 1,36,10,100 JAIN STEEL 11,27,78,221 11,24,28,904 Total 42. The AO held that the letters BKS stands for B. K. Sabarwal who was an entry operator. The revenue also alleged that the other names shown in the table were also entry operator and the scrips traded. 43. The amount commission Income earned by the assessee for facilitating normal accommodation entries as determined by the Assessing Officer is as under: A.Y. Receipts Payments Amount of Commission @2% 2012-13 - - - 2013-14 2,10,20,000 - 4,20,400 2014-15 - 26,00,000 - 2....