TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 1439
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order passed by the Assessing Officer (Assessing Officer) under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 21/12/2018 relevant to the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. Facts of the Case: 2. A search was conducted at the premises of H N Safal Group on 04-09-2013, wherein computer data/documents, etc., were seized. It was found that the soft data on the hard-disk contained information relating to the NIRVANA Scheme of M/s. Manushi Land Developers LLP. As per the final sheet, it was shown that Plot No. 188 was purchased in this Scheme, wherein the assessee had allegedly paid cash of Rs. 7,86,450/-. 2.1. Consequently, the AO recorded a satisfaction note on 19-03-2018 and is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt passed in the case of Anil Kumar Gopikishan Agrawal vs. ACIT (2019) reported at 106 taxman.com 137. On merits, the Ld.CIT (A) upheld the addition for the reasons stated in paragraph number 5.13 of the impugned order. 4. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)'s order, now the assessee is in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: "1.1 The order passed by Us. 250 passed on 17.10.2023 by CIT(A)-11 A'bad upholding the addition of Rs. 17,22,700/- made by A.O. is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2.1 The Id. CIT (A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the validity of notice u/s 153C though the condition precedent were not satisfied. The Ld. CIT (A) has failed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are denied and unjustified both on facts & in law. It is, therefore, prayed that the addition of Rs. 17,22,700/- upheld by the CIT (A) may kindly be deleted or in the alternative reduced by Rs. 9,36,250/-". On Ground Nos. 1 and 2: 5. The Authorised Ld. Representative (AR) for the assessee contented that the notice u/s. 153C of the Act should be issued within a reasonable time period. The notice u/s. 153C of the Act was issued on 19-3-2018, i.e. after more than 4 years after the search on 04-09-2013. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, stated that there is no such provision specifying the time limit as stated by Ld.AR. 5.1. It was observed and noted that Ld.CIT (A) has dealt with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttlement Commission in the order passed by AO. The Ld.DR contented that the assessee was privy to the information of order of Settlement Commission, and this was never challenged by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A). He further stated that the information in excel-sheet is not to be seen in isolation and it should be read with reference to the order of Settlement Commission. 6.3. The Ld.AR further contented that the Amount of Rs. 17,22,700/- added by the AO also include Rs. 9,34,250/-, which was paid by cheque and both the Ld.AO and the Ld.CIT (A) have erred. 6.4. The Ld.AR placed his reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia (in Tax Appeal No. 20 of 2024), dated 06/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le proceeding against the assessee. The statements of the persons recorded during search with reference to the alleged, seized material, was not provided to the assessee and hence, the entire proceedings under Section 153C of the IT Act of 1961 stood vitiated." 6.5. We have heard the submissions of both parties and perused the material on record. It is noted that the AO made the addition solely based on the seized data and statement of the searched person, who paid the taxes on admission of such undisclosed 'on-money' in cash. Such addition was made without affording an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the person, whose statements were relied upon. This is against the principles of natural justice. 6.6 Furthermore, the....