TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s liable to be quashed and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the assessing officer is without jurisdiction and barred by limitation and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 18,12,34,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have deleted the entire addition made by the assessing officer. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the various reasons given by assessing officer for making the additions are erroneous and CIT(A) erred in not holding them erroneous. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the various adverse / remark / inferences made by the CIT()A) are erroneous, 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not holding that the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act is contrary to the CBDT instruction. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otal income of Rs. 6,61,760/-. The same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 10.01.2018. Since search was initiated in this case, notice under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued on 17.09.2020 and duly served. In response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act, return of income was filed on 12.12.2020 declaring total income at Rs. 6,61,760/-. With respect to return of income dated 12.12.2020 filed in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act, a statutory notice u/s 143(2) dated 21.12.2020 has been issued through ITBA portal and duly served upon the assessee. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 23.12.2020 along with a detailed questionnaire was issued and served upon the assessee to furnish details, documents as mentioned therein. In response to these notices, the assessee filed submissions from time to time which are placed on record. During the year under consideration, the assessee derived income from Salary and Income from Other Sources. 3. On the analysis of seized material/ digital material and on finding that Sh. Aashish Garg, and his associates are controlling and running paper companies which are solely doing no actual business but are engaged in bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the impugned order. "16. The addition of Rs. 119,28,87,000/- made in the hands of the appellant, consist of deposits of Rs. 48,22,50,000/- in the case of Friends Telecom Pvt. Ltd. The addition made by the Assessing Officer in the hands of Friends Telecom Pvt. Ltd. has been confirmed by the CIT(A) in his order dated 29.06.2022. Therefore, the same cannot be made once again in the case of the appellant. 17. Further the addition in the hands of the appellant includes addition of Rs. 79,97,000 that was else made in the hands of Modular International Pvt. Ltd. This addition has been confirmed by the CIT(A) in his order dated 26.07.2022 in the hands of Modular international Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the same cannot be made once again in the case of the appellant. 18. The addition of Rs. 119,28,87,000/- made in the hands of appellant consist of one amount of Rs. 52,14,06,000/- in the hands of M/s Gracious Overseas Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A) vide his order dated 30.06.2022 has confirmed the addition in the hands of M/s. Gracious Overseas Pvt. Ltd., therefore the same addition cannot be made in the hands of appellant once again. 19. To sum up, an addition of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lars Amount 1. Additions already made in the hand of respective companies 118,84,51,000/- 2. Assessment reopened u/s 147 for cash deposit 42,00,000/- 3. Assessment made u/s 143(3) / 147 and no addition made in the respect of cash deposit 2,36,000/- Total 119,28,87,000/- 13. In the course of hearing, the Ld. AR produced written submissions as follows: "it is evident that for the applicability of provision of Section 68, the first requirement is that any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee' and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof. In the present case of the assessee, no sum is found credited in the books of the assessee i.e. Ashish Garg. There is no cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee i.e. Ashish Garg. Therefore, the assessee cannot be expected to explain the nature and source of amounts which are not even found to be credited in the books of the assessee. Therefore, the provisions of section 68 cannot be applied to the case of the assessee Sh. Ashish Garg in respect of cash deposited in the bank accounts of carious companies. As per AO himself, the cash....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of which the sum in question forms part, was found in the books the account of the partnership firm which in its own right is an assesses. In the above view of the matter, the books of account of the partnership firm herein cannot be considered as those of the individual assessee herein and, therefore, section 68 of the Income tax Act would not be attracted in the present case. The above view receives support from Laxmi Narain Gupta v. CTT (19801 124 ITR 94 (Pat). 10. The Hon'ble Mumbai bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT Central Circle-5(1) v. Jogia Properties Ltd. 2022 (10) TMI 1047-ITAT Mumbai held as under :- 024. We find that Section 68 of the Act does not talk about any beneficiaries but is added in the hands of each and every person where Assessee fails to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction to the satisfaction of the learned Assessing Officer. It is deemed income in the hands of the assessee who fails to explain nature and source of the same before the AO. Deeming fiction applies in the hands of the person in whose book's sums are credited. There it ends, such deeming fiction cannot travel to other ....