TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 595
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e impugned orders having identical question of facts and law are taken up for disposal by way of composite order to avoid repetition of discussion. 2. Appellant-the Revenue by filing the present appeals sought to set aside the impugned orders all dated 14.02.2023 on the identically worded grounds except the difference in amounts of addition/disallowance (for the sake of brevity grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 are taken) inter-alia that: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of unexplained investment of Rs. 15,00,00,000/- without appreciating the fact that statements recorded from Shri Nilesh Shamji Bharani and others and the incriminating documents seized during the course of search prove that the cash loan transactions are unexplained investment of the assessee. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of undisclosed interest of Rs. 2,47,38,333/- without appreciating the fact that assessee has given cash loans to Shri Nilesh Bharani and received undisclosed interest on unexplained investments made. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kar. The Assessing Officer (AO) after declining the contentions raised by the assessee made addition under section 69 of the Act for unexplained investment for A.Y. 2012-13 to 2017-18 as under: Sl. No A.Y Addition u/s. 69 1 2012-13 9,00,00,000/- 2 2013-14 15,00,00,000/- 3 2014-15 5,50,00,000/- 4 2015-16 5,00,00,000/- 5 2016-17 50,00,000/- 6 2017-18 15,25,00,000/- 7 2018-19 --- 5. The AO also made addition under section 56 of the Act on account of undisclosed interest income for A.Y. 2012-13 to A.Y. 2018-19 as under: Sl. No A.Y Addition u/s. 69 1 2012-13 84,73,333/- 2 2013-14 2,47,38,333/- 3 2014-15 3,18,76,458/- 4 2015-16 4,01,43,125/- 5 2016-17 4,22,62,292/- 6 2017-18 3,90,14,063/- 7 2018-19 3,92,75,521/- 6. The AO accordingly framed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13 to A.Y. 2017-18 and under section 143(3) for A.Y. 2018-19. 7. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeals who has deleted the addition by allowing the appeals filed by the assessee.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shri. Dipak Padia (para 5.21 of assessment order) that he has taken the name of Shri. Rashmin Rughani and not that of the appellant as the one who gave directions or who his boss was. f. As regards the finding of telephone numbers and name in the diary of Shri. Nilesh Bharani (para 5.19 of assessment order), it is seen that the appellant himself in the written submissions has admitted to banking transactions with the "Bharanis and that transactions have been made by cheques and TDS has been deducted for brokerage. This fact is also borne out from question 6 of the statement recorded by the AO on 28.11.2019 wherein the appellant cross- examined Shri. Nilesh Bharani, and the parties have confirmed before the AO that they had banking relations and loan transactions by cheque. g. No other evidence to corroborate any of the entries found in the search of Shri. Nilesh Bharani (either with respect to receipt or repayment of cash) is shown to have been found from the premises of the appellant at the time of his search on 18.12.2017 h. As regards the AO's observation that one of the parties named in the sheet has accepted the cash loans and offered the income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shows that the assessee has been coded as R/08/B and prayed for accepting the appeals. 11. However, on the other hand, the Ld. A.R. for the assessee by filing the cross objections supported the deletion made by the Ld. CIT(A) qua the addition made by the AO and contended inter- alia that the entire addition has been made by the AO on the basis of assumptions and presumptions; that no incriminating material has been found nor referred to by the AO while making the addition; that there is no correlation between the material found at the premises of Mr. Nilesh Bharani and the assessee of this case that Mr. Nilesh Bharani himself disclosed before the AO that they had banking relations and loan transactions by way of cheque; that even during the cross examination of Mr. Nilesh Bharani evidence has come on record in favour of the assessee. 12. First of all we have noticed that there is no incriminating material in order to fasten the liability of the assessee. The AO has proceeded against the assessee under section 153A of the Act. When there is no incriminating material then how the assessee can be proceeded against under section 153A of the Act. For argument sake even if it is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... found in possession of Mr. Dipak Padia and his statement who has referred to the transaction as discussed by the Ld. CIT(A) by thrashing the facts which further support the case of the assessee that these transactions referred to by the assessee belong to Mr. Nilesh Bharani and not the assessee. Moreover, Mr. Dipak Padia whose statement has been referred in para 5.19 of the assessment order has named one Mr. Rashmin Rughani and has not named assessee as his boss. Moreover, liability of addition cannot be fasten on the basis of statement only without any corroborative evidence. 18. Furthermore, when the AO has provided an opportunity of cross examination of one Mr. Nilesh Bharani to the assessee it has proved on record in the cross examination that the transactions between them (Mr. Nilesh Bharani and the assessee) were through banking channel and TDS and brokerage were deducted as is evident from question No. 6 of the statement of Mr. Nilesh Bharani recorded by the AO. Moreover, during the recording of statement and cross examination of Mr. Nilesh Bharani parties have confirmed that they had transactions with banking channel only. 19. In view of what has been discussed above....