TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 88
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....criminating material found in an income-tax search conducted on Mr Nilesh Bharani / Evergreen Enterprises; and the second set for the AYs 2012-13 to 2018-19 for which the assessment orders were passed u/s 153A of the Act as the assessee was also searched but admittedly on different search warrants and premises as of Mr Nilesh Bharani / Evergreen Enterprises. 3. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in brief are as below: AY 2011-12 Firstly, confirming the validity of the assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on the basis of an invalid and void ab initio notice u/s 148 of the Act issued on 30/03/2018. Secondly, upholding the action of AO on the basis of a borrowed satisfaction from investigation wing and personal statements on oath. Thirdly, confirming addition of Rs 19,95,800/- alleging non-declaration of salary income in the return of income filed in pursuance to notice u/s 148 of the Act though the same was part of original return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. Lastly, confirming addition of Rs 33,60,000/- u/s 69A of the Act for alleged unexplained cash loan lent and interest received on unexplained cash loan. AYs 2012....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te have admitted that they maintain cash loan ledgers/documents maintained at the premises of M/s Evergreen Enterprises. Further, Shri Jagdish T Ramani and Shri Shankar Jadhav have admitted in their statement on oath recorded u/s 132(4) that all the cash transactions are handled by them and they are involved in the collection and disbursement of cash loan and interest to both lenders and borrowers. It was observed that Shri Mahesh Joglekar had lent cash loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- in the FY 2010-11 3. It is to mention here that assessee had lent cash loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- to /through Shri Nilesh Bharani /M/s Evergreen Enterprises. 5. Further, I have also examined the information vis-à-vis the return of income of the assessee. After appraisal of the material on record, there is enough reason to believe that the assessee prima facie has given cash loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- during the year under consideration and the assessee has clearly failed to disclose all material facts for determination of income. 6. Hence, I have reason to believe that income of Rs. 30,00,000/- chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on part of assessee t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ormation so gathered could only be used in an assessment proceeding to be undertaken under the extended four relevant assessment years u/s 153A / 153C of the Act, as is mandated in respect of income-tax searches conducted w.e.f. 01/04/2017 because of mandatory non-obstante provision of the law or u/s 153C of the Act. 7. He also submitted vehemently that even otherwise in view of the infirmities in the reasons where not only the amount mentioned is incorrect, presuming that the statement of Mr Nilesh Bharani relied for the purpose vis-a-vis code, amount is correct, yet the said amount fell in the period relevant to the preceding AY 2010-11, because the date of the alleged transaction was 20/01/2010 which is clearly mentioned on page no. 28 of the assessment order, para no. 4.5 as well as a copy of the information relied upon by the Revenue given to the assessee placed at PB page no. 6. 8. He also stated that the fact that there was a complete non-application of mind not only by the AO as above but also by the PCIT granting approval u/s 151 of the Act as is given in the letter dated29/03/2018 given by the PCIT to the Addl. CIT intimating approval in the case of the assessee and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra). 92. Accordingly, we hold that any incriminating information of any undisclosed income of the person not searched which was found during the course of a search having taken place up to 31/03/2021 on some other assessee, can only be taken into consideration for an assessment / reassessment in the hands of the said person not searched through the domain of the section 153C of the Act. Thus, any assessment / reassessment proceedings-initiated u/s 148 of the Act in respect of the said incriminating information found during the course of a search up to 31/03/2021 on some other assessee is illegal and is ab initio as the same can be considered only by taking recourse to the provisions of the section 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act. Thus, the assessment of the said amount of LTCG, which was claimed to be exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act by the assessee, made u/s 147 of the Act is beyond the scope of section 147, albeit it can be roped in only u/s 153C. 93. If on overall appreciation of the scheme of assessment / reassessment of income after the income-tax searches on the assessee searched and also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....017-TIOL-961-ITAT-DEL, Piramal Enterprises Ltd 2017-TIOL-363-HC-MUM-IT,Bhanumati Malraj Kabali 2019-TIOL-289-HC-MUM-IT, Styric Chem (P) Ltd 2019-TIOL-2243-ITAT-DEL, Dr Ajit Gupta[2017] 79 taxmann.com 316 (Delhi), Kumar Dugar (HUF) (2008) 12 DTR (Del)(Trib) 16, Vithalbhai G Prajapati Vs ITO 2017-TIOL-1786-HC-AHM-IT, Inder Jeet, Sohna Gurgaon ITA No. 2740/Del/2018, Shamshad Khan vs ACIT 2017-TIOL-1607-HC-DEL-IT, Natrajan Monie ITA No. 1817/Del/2017, Munni Devi 2016-TIOL-2475-ITAT-DEL. 12. He also pointed out that no copy of the actual approval granted by the PCIT u/s 151 of the Act was given to the assessee and what was given is a letter given approval in a consolidated list of 22 cases. This is a complete violation to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sabh Infrastructure Ltd vs ACIT [2018] 99 taxmann.com 409 (SC) (DoD: 25/09/2017) approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case as ACIT vs Sabh Infrastructure Ltd [2024] 159 taxmann.com 184 (SC) (DoD: 01/02/2024). 13. In rebuttal, the Ld. CIT DR did not controvert the facts as above however submitted that once the information was received that assessee has given cash loan to Evergreen Enterprises....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the assessment order for A.Y.2012-13 at pages 22 and 23. It refers to same documents seized from Mr Nilesh Bharani / Evergreen Enterprises wherein there is detailed list of lenders alongwith code, name, actual amount, contact person and contact number. The said material refers to the name of some person "S.M. Joglekar" from where ld. AO has inferred to be the name of the assessee because even according to ld. AO whose finding is based on alleged material seized, name of the assessee is not there. Thus, as per him, in the alleged material seized, name of the assessee is not at all there. Even in para 5.19, telephone diary seized also show alphabet "J""J/ 71/SJ" where the name of assessee is not there. In fact, in respect of the alleged transaction of the assessee, added in the AY 2011-12, no code was there for the assessee but full name "M Joglekar" is mentioned. The learned counsel also mentioned that even if the assessee knew Mr SM Joglekar, in one manner or other, but undisputedly as per the information found during the course of search though denied by the assessee, and even if the contact number of the assessee is mentioned, yet as per the impugned material the same, the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee is Mahesh N Joglekar and nowhere it has been brought on record whether S.M. Joglekar is the same as Mahesh N Joglekar. Further, there is a reference of some name Ramesh Gala, which also has no connection with the assessee. It is not the case here that this document is found or seized from the possession of the assessee, albeit from different person subjected to search, therefore for acquiring jurisdiction to assess u/s 153C, AO has to correlate that the seized ledger/document where name written is 'S.M. Joglekar‟, pertains to assessee or it is some alias name of assessee. If the ld. AO is drawing some adverse inference based on these seized documents, at least he should have verified whether it actually pertains to the assessee or not? Because neither assessee's name is Ramesh Gala nor S.M. Joglekar. Even in para 5.19 of the AO, telephone diary seized also show alphabet "J""J/ 71/SJ" where the name of assessee is not there. Once there is no name mentioned of the assessee in the seized documents then, it cannot be said that it is an incriminating material to rope in any addition in the name of the assessee. 19. After considering the above facts on record, we are of t....