AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts in the issues are common in the captioned appeals, for the sake of our convenience, we have heard the representatives on the facts of AY 2020-21 in ITA No. 2485/Mum/2023 and ITA No. 3122/Mum/2023. 3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused and the relevant documentary evidence brought on record, duly considered in light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules, 1963. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the cases related to Triton Group on 13/07/2020 which included the assessee M/s. Triton Hotels & Resorts Private Limited. The statutory notices u/s 153A of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee pursuant to which the assessee filed its return of income. The return income of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration was assessed as under:- Sr. No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) 1 Income as per return u/s 153A of the Act Nil 2 Add: Addition u/s 69C of the Act - Para 4 29,40,245 3 Add: Addition u/s 69C of the Act - Para 5 3,23,99,505 4 Add: Addition u/s 69C of the Act - Para 6 - Protective 1,60,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....purchase have been found to be recorded and seized from the residential premises of Mr. Jiten Pujari. The scanned copy of the document is reproduced below:- 9. The AO was of the opinion that the aforementioned payments are unaccounted and the total payments come to US$ 38500 equivalent to Rs. 29,40,245/-. The assessee was asked to provide complete details of the transactions and also provide the nature and source of payments. In its reply, the assessee explained that the alleged payments have been found and seized from the residential premises of Mr. Jiten Pujari, who was maintaining the diaries and the assessee is not in a position to comment upon the contents of the same. It was brought to the notice of the AO that Mr. Jiten Pujari has confirmed that the said diaries were his personal diaries having nothing to do with the assessee. It was strongly contended that the name of the assessee is not found mentioned anywhere on the page. 9.1. The contention of the assessee did not find favour with the AO. The AO was of the opinion that the retraction filed by Mr. Jiten Pujari is clearly an afterthought and, therefore, no cognizance can be taken of the retraction statement and conc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or which the revenue is in appeal. 12. We have carefully perused the findings of the ld. CIT(A) qua the additions. The seized annexure being a scanned copy which is exhibited elsewhere, does not contain the name of the assessee anywhere. The said document was found and seized from the residential premises of Mr. Jiten Pujari. Therefore, the presumption is that the said document pertains to Mr. Jiten Pujari. As the name of the assessee is nowhere mentioned in the said document the presumption that it belongs to the assessee does not hold any water and most importantly it does not bear any signature neither of the AO nor of the assessee nor of any witnesses to suggest that it was impounded during the search proceedings. 12.1. We have carefully perused the design agreement entered between the assessee and RGDCL, the interior designer. The said agreement is made on 23/04/2021, which means that no agreement existed during FY 2019-20 relevant to AY 2020-21 under consideration. Since there was no operative agreement between the assessee and the said interior designer, there is no question of incurring any expenditure during the year under consideration. Further, the agreement betwee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asis for making the addition/partially confirming addition of the same, the AO is directed to delete the entire addition of Rs. 3,23,99,505/-. This ground is also allowed and the related grounds in the revenue's appeal are dismissed. 17. Coming to the revenue's appeal in I.T.A. No. 3122/Mum/2023, Ground Nos. 1 & 2 have already been dismissed as discussed hereinabove and as mentioned elsewhere, other additions were made on protective basis and the same have been either confirmed in M/s. Vardha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (supra) or deleted therein on account of duplicate addition. We do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the protective addition of Rs. 31,49,84,904/- as the same has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Vardha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 18. Accordingly appeal of the assessee is ITA No. 2485/Mum/2023 is allowed and appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 3122/Mum/2023 is dismissed. 19. Now, we take up the revenue's appeal in ITA No. 3123/Mum/2023; AY 2018-19. 20. The first addition relates to the payment to RGDCL, interior designer. Facts on record show that the impugned addition was deleted and was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs. 1,18,63.500/- made u/s 69C of the I.T. Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to explain the source of payment. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs. 42,74,550 /- made u/s 69C of the I.T. Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to explain the source of payment made to Randolph Gray Design Company Ltd. through Wander Baker on behalf of the assessee. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs. 26,01,900/- made u/s 69C of the I.T. Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to explain the source of payment made to Belt Collins International(Singapore) Pte Ltd. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs. 11,00,232/- made u/s 69C of the I.T. Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to explain the source of payment made to KLD consulting Pte Ltd. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addit....