TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 276
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs 25/11/2019 2015-16 3] 47/NAG/2021 (By Revenue) 4] CO No.3/NAG/ 2021 (by Assessee) M/s. Radha Madhav Developers 23/03/2021 2011-12 5] 48/NAG/2021 (By Revenue) 6] CO No.4/NAG/2021 (by Assessee) M/s. Radha Madhav Developers 23/03/2021 2012-13 7] 49/NAG/2021 (By Revenue) 8] CO No.5/NAG/2023 (by Revenue) M/s. Radha Madhav Developers 23/03/2021 2013-14 9] 140/NAG/2021 M/s. Radha Madhav Developers 06/09/2021 2018-19 2. The department has raised following grounds of appeal:- [1] ITA No. 26/NAG/2020 (A.Y. 2014-15) Tax Effect 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,38,21,488/- made by the AO towards difference in cost of investment in the property based on Department Valuer's Report. Rs. 4,21,21,617/- 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,38,21,488/- made by the AO as there had been no rejection of books of account u/s 145 failing to appreciate that by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f 01.10.2014 the amendment in section 142A enunciate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in limiting the scope of section 153A only to undisclosed income when as per the section, the AO has to assess or re-assess the total income of the six assessment years? 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the scope of section 153A is limited to assessing only search related income, thereby denying Revenue the opportunity of taxing other escaped income that comes to the notice of the AO? 12. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that assessing officer while computing income u/s 153A is well within his powers to compute taxable income on the basis of material on record even though such material was not found during the course of search operation in view of section 15881 w.e.f.01/06/2003. 13. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITIA) failed to appreciate that the AO while computing income u/s 153A is well within his powers to compute taxable income on the basis of material/information received on record even though such material or information rece....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e identity and creditworthiness of lender companies and genuineness of transaction without appreciating the fact that these lender companies were Kolkata based paper/shell companies which had later on been taken over by the assessee and his family members. 20 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the credit entries in form of share premium, loans were received from shell companies who are part of financial manoeuvring to legitimise illicit money and evade taxes and lack of genuineness in actual operations of shell companies. 21. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITIA) has deleted the addition by superficially assessing the genuineness of transactions by accepting the documents sighted before him on face value ignoring the surrounding circumstances, preponderance of human probabilities and ground realities? 22. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- holding that the amount is received through banking channel by incorrectly distinguishing the ratio of decision of Hon'ble Su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f investment in the property based on Department Valuer's Report. Rs. 41,41,644/- Total Tax Effect Rs,41,41,644/- (4) ITA NO. 48/NAG/2021 (A.Y.2012-13) Tax Effect 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,38,48,953/- made by the AO towards difference in cost of investment in the property based on Department Valuer's Report. Rs. 47,07,260/- Total Tax Effect Rs,47,07,260/- (5) ITA NO. 49/NAG/2021 (A.Y. 2013-14) Tax Effect 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,20,24,434/- made by the AO towards difference in cost of investment in the property based on Department Valuer's Report. Rs. 3,65,17,247/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 3,65,17,247 /- (6) ITA NO. 140/NAG/2021 (A.Y. 2018-19) Tax Effect 1. Addition u/s 68 for Rs.1.65 crores Rs. 55,00,000/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 55,00,000/- 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, PCIT(C), dated 8/10/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 is reproduced belo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ven another opportunity to explain the cost of construction vide questionnaire dt 26.02.2015. However, he failed to respond to this questionnaire. It was, therefore, necessary to arrive at the fair valuation of the project and the investment made by the assessee in the project and therefore, during the assessment proceedings, reference was made u/s 142A of the Income Tax Act to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) to find out the total cost of project and the expenditure incurred by the assessee for development for project "Vrindavan". The District Valuation Officer (DVO), Bhopal has submitted his report dated 22.12.2016 which is given in brief as under:- F.Y. A.Y. Cost of Investment in the Project declared by Assessee (Rs.) Assessed by Valuation Cell (Rs.) Difference in amount (Rs.) 2010-11 2011-12 4,45,86,000/- 5,25,45,132/- 79,59,132/- 2011-12 2012-13 7,75,80,000/- 9,14,28,953/- 1,38,48,953/- 2-12-13 2013-14 45,94,90,000/- 54,15,14,434/- 8,20,24,434/- 4. The summery of the cases before the ITAT is as under: S. No ITA AY Appeal by Asst. Order Abated/ Unabated Additions CIT (A) Orde 1. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the appellant is further strengthened by the fact that the construction of the project was not executed by the appellant itself but was given on back to back sub-contract to its sister concern M/s Sufalam Infra Projects Ltd (SIPL). The AO has failed to examine what is the WIP shown by SIPL in its books of account. There is no mention in the assessment as to whether the sub-contractor SIPL, who has actually executed the project, was examined by the AO on this issue. In the assessment order, the AO has referred to the decision of H'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Dr. Inder Swaroop Bhatnagar ITA no. 97 of 2008 dated 29.09.2011] where the H'ble Court held that, when the AO has obtained the DVO report then the same is binding.' However, that decision was given in the context of addition made under section 50C and DVO's report obtained for determining the fair market value of the property for the purpose of section 50C of the Act. The decision given by the H'ble Allahabad High Court cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be applied in this case. In the assessment order, the AO has emphasised that provisions of section 142A(2) of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. It is the case on behalf of the Revenue that once upon the search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the assessment has to be done under Section 153A of the Act, 1961 and the AO thereafter has the jurisdiction to pass assessment orders and to assess the 'total income' taking into consideration other material, though no incriminating material is found during the search even in respect of completed/unabated assessments. 7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such various High Courts, namely, Delhi High Court, Gujarat High Court, Bombay High Court, Karnataka High Court, Orissa High Court, Calcutta High Court, Rajasthan High Court and the Kerala High Court have taken the view that no addition can be made in respect of completed/unabated assessments in absence of any incriminating material. The lead judgment is by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra), which has been subsequently followed and approved by the other High Courts, referred to here in above. One another lead judgment on the issue is the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra), which has been followed by the Gujarat ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;reassess to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the AO. vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." 7.2 Thereafter in the case of Saumya Construction (supra), the Gujarat High Court, while referring the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and after considering the entire scheme of block assessment under Section 153A of the Act, 1961, had held that in case of completed assessment/unabated assessment, in absence of any incriminating material, no additional can be made by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the assessee is required to be determined under section 153A, of the Act. Similarly, sub-section (2) provides for revival of any assessment or reassessment which stood abated, if any proceeding or any order of assessment or reassessment made under section 153A of, the Act is annulled in appeal or any other proceeding. 16. Section 153A bears the heading "Assessment in case of search or requisition". It is well settled as held by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that the heading of the, section can be regarded as a key to the interpretation of the operative portion of, the section and if there is no ambiguity in the language or if it is plain and clear, then the heading used in the section strengthens that meaning From the heading of section 153, the intention of the Legislature is clear, viz, to provide for assessment in case of search and requisition. When, the very purpose of the provision is to make assessment in case of search or requisition, it goes without saying that the assessment has to have relation to the search or requisition. In other words, the assessment, should be connected with something found during the search or requisition, viz., incrimina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the provisions of the Act to make assessment qua income other than undisclosed income. Secondly, that the 'undisclosed income' was chargeable to tax at a special rate of 60% under section 113 whereas income other than 'undisclosed income' was required to be assessed under regular assessment procedure and was taxable at normal rate. Therefore, section 153A came to be inserted and brought on the statute. Under Section 153A regime, the intention of the legislation was to do away with the scheme of two parallel assessments and tax the 'undisclosed income too at the normal rate of tax as against any special rate. Thus, after introduction of Section 153A and in case of search, there shall be block assessment for six years. Search assessments/block assessments under Section 153A are triggered by conducting of a valid search under Section 132 of the Act, 1961. The very purpose of search, which is a prerequisite/trigger for invoking the provisions of sections 153A/153C is detection of undisclosed Income by undertaking extraordinary power of search and seizure, i.e the income which cannot be detected in ordinary course of regular assessment. Thus, the foundation for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sub- section (1) has been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1) or Section 153, the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso to sub- section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the Commissioner: Provided that such revival shall cease to have effect, if such order of annulment is set a side Explanation. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that,- (i) save as otherwise provided in this section, Section 153-8 and Section 153-C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section; (ii) in an assessment or reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year." 11. As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' in respect of each assessment year falling within six....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and in case no incriminating material is found during the search, the power of the Revenue to have the reassessment under sections 147/148 of the Act has to be saved, otherwise the Revenue would be left without remedy. 12. If the submission on behalf of the Revenue that in case of search even where no incriminating material is found during the course of search, even in case of unabated/completed assessment, the AD can assess or reassess the income/total income taking into consideration the other material is accepted, in that case, there will be two assessment orders, which shall not be permissible under the law. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that the assessment under Section 153A of the Act is linked with the search and requisition under Sections 132 and 132A of the Act. The object of Section 153A is to bring under tax the undisclosed income which is found during the course of search or pursuant to search or requisition. Therefore, only in a case where the undisclosed income is found on the basis of Incriminating material, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income for the entire six years block assessment period even in case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby No costs." 8. Following the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd, (2023) 225 DTR 0105 (SC), (2023) 332 CTR 0385 (SC), (2023) 454 ITR 0212 (SC),(2023) 293 TAXMAN 0141 (SC), we hold that the additions based on DVO report cannot survive. Accordingly the ground of revenue for these two assessment years is dismissed. 9. As far as assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 are concerned, which are abated assessment years, we find that the matter was before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. B.G.Shirke Construction Technology Pvt Ltd, (2018) 172 DTR 0028 : (2018) 257 TAXMAN 0561 (Bombay). Their Lordships have held as below : "3. The Respondent Assessee is a company engaged in the business of civil construction. On 18.12.2008 there was search and seizure operation conducted in the Respondent's premises. During the course of search, valuation report of the site engineers of the projects regarding work in progress (WIP) as on 30.11.2008 were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dition u/s.69C was the valuation report certified by the site engineers. These valuation reports indicated existence of WIP of the value shown in the reports on that particular date, i.e., 30.11.2008. Therefore, the appellant was in the possession of the WIP of value which has been certified by the site engineers. As this value was more than the value recorded in the books of accounts, the appellant was in the possession of the excess WIP as on 30.11.2008. As discussed earlier, this excess WIP has already been added to the income of the appellant in view of incorporation of correct value of WIP as on 31.3.2009 and incorporation of correct figures of sales, purchases and other expenses in the period from 1.12.2008 to 31.3.2009. Under the circumstances, addition of the same amount again u/s.69C of the Act is not justified. (emphasis supplied) The CIT(A) further recorded the fact that the Respondent had explained reasons for difference in the work- in-progress as found on 30.11.2008 at the time of search on 18.12.2008 i.e. provisional estimate of the work-in- progress and not a result of taking physical inventory by the respondent- assessee or the search party In the above ci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T(A) as well as of the Tribunal that the Work in Progress as disclosed during the time of search was on provisional basis and it was taken into consideration while determining the Work in Progress as on 31.3.2009. The proposed question that the Tribunal held that there is a difference in the book value and the physical value of the Work in Progress is factually not correct. We did point out this to the counsel for the Revenue but he insisted to pressing this question. However, during the course of his submission, he was not able to substantiate the above presumption in the question as framed. 8. In the above view, in the facts of this case, question as proposed is academic, unless the Revenue first challenges finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. The finding of fact is that, there is no excess work in progress than that declared by the Respondent-Assessee as on 31.3.2009 and the valuation done of the work-in- progress as on 31.11.2008 was only on provisional basis. 9. Moreover, even if assume that the closing stock i.e. work-in- progress is in excess of that recorded/disclosed by the Respondent, the same has to be added to the income only under Section 69A o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the same Assessing Officer did not make any reference to the alleged incriminating document B-12 on the basis of which the entire addition of this assessment proceeding has been drawn. B-12 is only a tender document regarding construction of Vrindavan Township for M/s. Radha Madhav Developers, prepared by the Project Management Consultant "Sanghi Consulting Engineers (I) P.Ltd, [page 159 of Paper Book]. From page 163 of the Paper Book, we find that the tender was issued to Sufalam Infra Project Ltd. Page No. 175 of the Paper Book describes an abstract of costs towards the construction of integrated township at Vrindavan. The aggregate costs is arrived at Rs.271,23,36,000/- only. This tender document is only an estimated cost of construction, which is prepared on 20th November, 2012. By any means it could not be considered to be an actual expenditure incurred on the project. [ii] The original assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the IT Act on 30.12.2016 after taking approval under Section 153D by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-1, Nagpur. The order u/s 263 was passed on 08.10.2018. Subsequent to such revision order, the impugned assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hy the rates of Bhopal have been considered, instead of Nagpur, as the cities are in different States with no geographical similarity. However, we further find that in para 9.1 at page 155 of the paper book, the DVO has clearly mentioned, "having considered the documents furnished by the Assessing Officer and the assessee and having taken into consideration all relevant material gathered, I estimate the cost of investment in property i.e. 'Vrindavan' 111 acre project near VCA Cricket Stadium on Wardha Road, Jamtha Nagpur (M.H.). Thus, it is crystal clear that the valuation report is nothing but an estimate. The additions perpetuated by the AO under Section 69C is on account of unexplained expenditure. The legislative history of Section 69C is narrated below. "This section was inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, with effect from 1st April, 1976. It has continued unamended since its inception save for the substitution of the word "Assessing" for "Income-tax" by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, with effect from 1 April 1988. 1998 -- The proviso has been inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, with effect from 1 April, 1999. Board Circula....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cost of construction of business asset with a valuation report from a registered valuer, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Departmental valuation officer. The Tribunal held that the retrospective amendment to section 142A does not cover a case of unexplained expenditure under section 69C. Since no reference could have been made, the addition with reference to the Departmental valuation officer's report was held untenable. The answer could have been different, if the addition was based on enquiry by the Assessing Officer himself and not solely on the basis of the Valuation Officer's report. [CIT V Aar Pee Apartment P Ltd, (2009) 319 ITR 276 (Del)] 12. The above fact is a clear pointed that by no means the addition could have been made on the basis of the departmental valuation report. No enquiry whatsoever has been conducted by the AO to positively come to a conclusion that such an expenditure was incurred outside the book and the assessee was not in a position to explain the nature and source thereof. In fact, the PCIT (Central) had revised the order on the ground that the valuation report was failed to have been taken into cognizance by the AO, b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he evidence on record and treating the unsecured loans received as unexplained cash credits U/s 68 of the Act which is illegal and the addition so made deserves to be deleted in Interest of justice 8.2 The appellant further submitted that the Lender companies pertaining to AY 2014-15 had the following financials: Anubhav Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Blue View Trade com Pvt. Ltd. Raj Laxmi Decision Pvt. Ltd. Share Capital 90,48,000/- 47,22,500/- 60,10,000/- Reserves & Surplus 22,76,16,272/- 18,57,46,389/- 11,34,51,562/- The Lender companies pertaining to AY 2015-16 had the following financials: Umang Trading Pvt. Ltd. Surendra Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. Share Capital 18,43,80,000/- 7,77,00,000/- Reserves & Surplus 42,45,39,674/- 158,33,78,983/- 8.3 The appellant submitted that it has through confirmation of accounts, bank statements and audited financial statements justified the transaction of granting of loans by the Lenders. The appellant has thus sufficiently proved the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the Lenders and has sufficiently discharged its onus cast upon it in light ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ouncements in support of its arguments. 8.6 I have gone through the assessment order as well as the arguments of the appellant and am inclined to agree with the appellant. It is undisputed fact that the unsecured loans have been received by the appellant through banking channels. It is further undisputed that the Lenders independently confirmed the transaction of loan in response to the notices issued by the 0 U/s 133(6) of the Act and further submitted confirmations and the copies of the bank statements, copies of Income Tax Returns and audited Balance sheet. 8.7 I find that the appellant has duly satisfied the onus cast upon it under the rigors of the provisions of section 68 of the Act. The appellant has duly proved the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction of the receipt of unsecured loans from Lenders. The fact that the Lenders are private limited companies are enough to prove their identities. Further the amount has been transferred by banking channels which prove the genuineness of the transaction which has been further independently confirmed. The financials of the companies highlighted at para 8.2 above suggest that the Lenders fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Hon'ble High Court held as under: 5. The Court is of the view that the Assessee by produced sufficient documentation discharged its initial onus of showing the genuineness and creditworthiness of the share applicants. It was incumbent to the assessing officer to have undertaken some inquiry and investigation before coming to a conclusion on the issue of creditworthiness. In para 39 of the decision in Nova Promoters (supra), the Court has taken note of a situation where the complete particulars of the share applicants are furnished to the assessing officer and the assessing officer fails to conduct an inquiry. The Court has observed that in that event no addition can be made in the hands of the Assessee under section 68 of the Act and it will be open to the Revenue to move against the share applicants in accordance with law. 8.12 The appellant has further rightly placed reliance on Vishnulal Karwa Vs. ITO (1987) 32 Taxman 276(Jp - Trib) wherein it has been held that even highly suspicious circumstances by itself would not lead to the conclusion that the amount belonged to the assessee. In the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, disbelieving the evid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to these parties in cash, it means the assessee has discharged the primary onus cast upon it to prove the identity, capacity and genuineness of transactions. The AO in the present case has nowhere proven or even alleged that the amount so received from the Lenders have been returned back to the Lenders in cash which makes the addition bad in law and liable to be deleted. 8.15 In Umbrella Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO ITA No. 5955/Del/2014 wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has held that if the assessee has discharged the initial onus regarding the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness, the onus shifts to the AO to bring material or evidence to discredit the same. The fact that the shareholders did not respond to s. 133(6) summons is not sufficient to draw an adverse inference. In the present case the Lenders have duly responded to the notices issued U/s 133(6) which makes the present case far stronger on facts. 8.16 It is further rightly argued that the addition made u/s 68 is not sustainable as the AO has nowhere controverted the evidences filed by the appellant nor has produced any concrete justification for making the addition. The AO apart from issuing notice u/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....018. The relevant portion of order of Hon'ble CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder: 6. I find that the appellant has made detailed submissions and given supporting evidence. I find substantial force in the submission given by the appellant. The appellant during the course of assessment proceedings had submitted confirmation, copy of return of income of the lending companies along with their P&L account and Balance Sheet. The AO in the assessment order itself has stated that M/s Anubhav Vinimay P. Ltd. had shown income of Rs. 12.93 lakhs during A.Y. 2013-14 and Rs. 12.11 lakhs in A.Y. 2014-15 as income from interest. The AO has also noted that the appellant had shown Long Term Capital Gain on sale of unquoted to the tune of Rs. 1.62crores during A.Y. 2014-15. Further, the AO has also stated that returned income for A.Υ. 2010-11 is Rs. 1.56 crores and for A.Y. 2013-14 is Rs. 1.99 lakhs. The AO has also stated the source Rs. 21.47 crores of fund advanced to the appellant is from share premium of shown by M/s Anubhav Vinimay P. Ltd. as reserve and surplus. Further, in case of M/s Bonanza Suppliers P. Ltd., the AO has noted that the appellant had shown returned income for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant was not able to prove the nature and source of the unsecured loan. 6.2 The AO in the assessment order on page 5 has referred to the case of in CIT v/s R.Mohen Kala (2007) 6 SCC 2, in that case the subject matter was transaction which though apparent were held to be not real one. However, I find that in this case, the creditor company had its own credit balance at its deposal referred to the case of Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. and the judgment in the case of Sumati Dayal [214 ITR 801]. The facts of this case do not apply as the AO has not been able to bring out that the funds advanced by the creditor company were non genuine funds or that the transaction was sham & bogus transaction. In spite of search proceeding at appellant premise, no positive evidence to this effect has been brought in the assessment order. Accordingly, the case laws relied upon by the AO is distinguishable. I find that the appellant case is more supported by the following judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant:- 1. CIT V/s Dwarakadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) (ITA Nos. 911 of 2010) 2. CIT V/s Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (Delhi High Court) (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ircumstances in the case of appellant are identical to that in the case of appellant for A.Y. 2013-14. No independent reason other than the reasons given in A.Y. 2013-14 are given for making addition at the hands of appellant. I have perused the findings given in the appellate order and agree with the same. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of case and by following the order of my predecessor CIT(A) in case of appellant for A.Y. 2013-14, I am of considered view that the addition made by the AO is unjustified and unjustified and unwarranted and thus addition made by the AO of Rs. 3,30,00,000/-u/s 68 of the LT. Act is hereby directed to be deleted. Ground nos. 3 and 4 are accordingly allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. 8.18 Based on the above facts, discussions and respectfully following the various judicial pronouncements cited supra, I am of the view that the addition made u/s 68 of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- for AY 2014-15 and Rs. 4,00,00,000/- for AY 2015-16 deserves to be deleted as per law as the appellant has duly discharged the onus placed upon it u/s 68 of the Act." 14. At the time of hearing, the Sr. DR vehemently submitted that t....