TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 24
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....213,65,88,529/- after making an addition of Rs.4,97,14,659/- representing unexplained expenditure under the head 'xyz' expenses u/s 69C read with section 115BBE of the Act, addition made of Rs.2,77,79,000/- representing cash payment made to Chetak Enterprises for purchase of an old machinery and held as unexplained investment by invocation of section 69B read with section 115BBE of the Act and further addition made of Rs.1,00,00,000/- representing alleged cash payment made to supplier namely Aggarwal Spun Pipes and Verticast Concrete (P) Ltd. and held as unexplained expenditure by invocation of section 69C read with section 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions made by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the aforesaid additions made in the assessment order dated 11.4.2022 u/s 153A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal :- "1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A of the Act and, framing of assessment u/s 153A of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reciate the factual substratum of the case, statutory provisions of law and as such, addition so made and sustained is highly misconceived, totally arbitrary, wholly unjustified and therefore, unsustainable. Prayer It is therefore, prayed that it be held that notice issued u/s 153A of the Act and also assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act are without jurisdiction and deserve to be quashed as such. It be further held that addition made and sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be deleted and appeal of the appellant company be allowed." 5. Grounds No.3 to 3.2 relate to addition of Rs.4,97,14,659/- representing alleged expenditure incurred under the head 'xyz' expenses and held as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C read with section 115BBE of the Act. 6. Considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We are of the considered view that since the facts relating to the above said grounds are identical to the Grounds 4 to 4.2 in ITA No.2321/D/2023 for Assessment year 2014-15 in the case of assessee which have already been decided the issue in an earlier order dated 4.9.2024 by the coordinate Bench and grounds raised by the assessee ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de is as under: 79 During the course of appellate proceedings, Vide letter dated 04.07.2023,a Copy of the impugned document was sent and confronted to the appellant. The appellant in response to the letter has stated as under (vide his letter dated 04.07.2023) :- "It is respectfully submitted that it is undisputed that the printout now supplied was never confronted to the appellant during the assessment proceedings. It is submitted since the aforesaid printout has never been made the basis of addition by confronting the same to the appellant no addition can now be validity be made particularly when it is a apparently third party document and not a document signed by the appellant or prepared by the directors of the appellant. It is thus submitted in absence of any inquiries having been conducted by the ld. Assessing Officer no addition can validity be made on the basis of the aforesaid dumb document." 84 The document was seized from the premise of the appellant. Therefore, the primary onus lies on the appellant to rebut the contents of the document. As the appellant has not been able to explain the source of money for making the payment, therefore, the Assessing Officer was c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5310000.00 2 BGCC U.P. Vogek Payer Punjab 7500000.00 4300000.00 3200000.00 576000.00 3756000.00 3 BGCC U.P. CAT Grader 3500000.00 2700000.00 800000.00 144000.00 914000.00 4 BGCC Haryana CAT Grader 3500000.00 2700000.00 800000.00 144000.00 914000.00 5 BGCC Haryana CAT Grader 3500000.00 2700000.00 800000.00 144000.00 914000.00 6 BGCC Haryana Tandem Roll 950000.00 550000.00 400000.00 720000.00 472000.00 BGCC U.P. Tandem Roll 950000.00 550000.00 400000.00 720000.00 472000.00 BGCC U.P. Tandem Roll 950000.00 550000.00 400000.00 720000.00 472000.00 7. BGCC Haryana Transit Mixer 950000.00 650000.00 300000.00 54000.00 354000.00 BGCC Haryana Transit Mixer 950000.00 650000.00 300000.00 54000.00 354000.00 BGCC Haryana Transit Mixer 950000.00 650000.00 300000.00 54000.00 354000.00 8 BGCC U.P. Transit Mixer 950000.00 650000.00 300000.00 54000.00 354000.00 BGCC U.P. Transit Mixer 950000.00 650000.00 300000.00 54000.00 354000.00 BGCC U.P. Transit Mixer 950000.00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Enterprises during the financial year 2020- 21 relevant to assessment year 2021-22. The details of the purchase of old machinery is as under: Sr.No. Date of Invoice Invoice No. Amount (Rs.) Tax (Rs.) Total Bill (Rs.) i) 3.6.2020 CEL/GZB/01 45,00,000 8,10,000 53,10,000 ii) 11.6.2020 CEL/PJ/01 32,00,000 5,76,000 37,76,000 iii) 2.7.2020 CEL/GZB/16 8,00,000 1,44,000 9,44,000 iv) 2.7.2020 CEL/GZB/18 8,00,000 1,44,000 9,44,000 v) 2.7.2020 CEL/GZB/17 8,00,000 1,44,000 9,44,000 vi) 6.8.2020 CEL/GZB/24 6,21,000 1,11,780 7,32,780 vii) 10.8.2020 CEL/GZB/25 8,00,000 1,44,000 9,44,000 viii) 16.8.2020 CEL/GZB/41 4,00,000 72,000 4,72,000 ix) 23.9.2020 CEL/GZB/55 3,00,000 54,000 3,54,000 x) 23.9.2020 CEL/GZB/56 3,00,000 54,000 3,54,000 xi) 23.9.2020 CEL/GZB/58 3,00,000 54,000 3,54,000 xii) 23.9.2020 CEL/GZB/59 3,00,000 54,000 3,54,000 xiii) 23.9.2020 CEL/GZB/60 3,00,000 54,000 3,54,000 xiv) 23.9.2020 CEL/GZB/61 2,00,000 36,000 2,36,000 XV) 23.9.2020 CEL/GZB/62 4,00,000 72,000 4,72,000 xvi) 23.9.2020 CEL/GZB/63 4,00,000 72,000 4,72,000 xvii) 23.9.2020 CEL/GZB/64 3,00,000 54,000 3,54,000 xvii....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R 713 (SC) KishnichandChellaram vs. CIT iv) 288 ITR 345 (Del.) CIT vs. SMC Share Broker Limited v) 293 ITR 43 (Del) CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal vi) 295 ITR 105 (Del) CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. vii) 303 ITR 95 (Del) CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta viii) 322 ITR 396 (Del) CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta ix) 379 ITR 367 (Del) CIT v Sunil Aggarwal xi) ITA No(s)3185, 3186 & 3253/D/2015 (Del) PCIT vs. PavitraRealcon (P) Ltd. xii) ITA No. 645/2019 (Del) dated 23.9.2024 PCIT v. Moon Beverages Ltd. III That it is a case of clear lack of enquiry and not a case of objective appreciation of facts on record. i) 361 ITR 10 (Del) CIT v. Gangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd. ii) 357 ITR 146 (Del) CIT vs. Fair Finvest Ltd iii) ITA No. 212/2012 dated 11.4.2012 (Del) CIT v. Goel Sons Golden Estate (P) Ltd. iv) 342 ITR 169 (Del) Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd v) ITA No. 645/2012 dated 13.1.2015 (Del) Funnay Time Finvest Ltd vi) 361 ITR 220 (Del) CIT vs. M/s Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. vii) ITA No. 71/2015 dated 12.8.2015 (Del) CIT v. Vrindavan Farms (P) Ltd. viii) ITA No. 3342/D/2013 ITO v. XO Infotech Ltd. 14. The ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the findings of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shopping Mall, Rohini, Delhi are print outs in the shape of loose paper seized from the office premises of M/s BrijGopal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted that these loose papers are dumb documents. It is respectfully submitted that they have no relation with any materialised or concluded transaction. They have not been found in the possession of any director or employee of the assessee company, therefore cannot be made basis for drawing any adverse inference. It is thus respectfully prayed that no adverse inference be drawn from such loose papers." 16. The above printout was not speaking document which can be used as a basis for making the addition u/s 69B of the Act in the absence of any substantive enquiry to validate the content of the paper with any supportive and corroborative material, more particularly have been regard to the confirmation from M/s Chetak Enterprises Ltd. also denied to have been received any cash. The market value of the machinery also stands corroborative as per the valuation report which too stands unrebutted. 17. In ACIT vs. Sharad Choudhary [2014] 165 TTJ 145 (Delhi-Trib.), it has been held that "a charge can be levied on the basis of d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shukla 3 SCC 410 (SC) CIT vs. GirishChaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) CIT vs. Anil Bhalla (2010) 322 ITR 191 (Delhi) CIT vs. Atam Valves (P.) Ltd. 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) Atul Kumar Jain vs. DCIT (1999) 64 TTJ (Delhi) 786 15. In the case of CIT vs. Jaipal Aggarwal [2013] 212 Taxman 1 (Delhi)- wherein it was held that Dumb documents seized, i.e., from which nothing could be clearly understood, cannot form a justified base for making additions to income of the assessee. Decision of the hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. SharadChoudhary [2014] 165 TTJ 145 (Delhi-Trib.) wherein it has been held that "a charge can be levied on the basis of document only when the document is a speaking one. The document should speak either out of itself or in the company of other material found on investigation and/or in the search. The document should be clear and unambiguous in respect of all four components of charge of tax. If it is not so, the document is only a dumb document and no charge of tax can be levied on the assessee on the basis of a dumb document." Further it has been held that in absence of any supportive and corroborative material and evidence, a loose paper found d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipe Verticast 47,500.00 Less - Pipe Return Aggarwal 15,254.00 Less - Cash 5,000,000.00 Less - Cash 5,000,000.00 Less Verticast Cement 7520 198.00 1,488,960.00 Less - Aggarwal Cement 7400 208.00 1,539,200.00 Add Cement (3028100) 3.5% 105,985.00 Closing Balance 5,350,844.00 22. The ld. AO has observed that based on the said sheet, assessee has made cash payment to suppliers namely M/s Aggarwal Spun Pipes and Verticast Concrete (P) Ltd. amounting to Rs. 50 lacs each and made the addition by holding as under: "As per discussion in para C 9.1, as the assessee has failed to discharge his onus to explain the nature and business relevance of this expenditure. Further, the source of the same has not been explained. As per the provisions of Section 292C of the I.T. Act, 1961 the onus lies on the assessee to explain the contents of these documents, since they were seized from his residence. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Delhi. The document was seized from the premise of the appellant and therefore, the primary onus to explain the contents lies on the appellant. The appellant has not been able to explain the documents and state the source of cash available which has been utilized for making unaccounted payment. 47 By virtue of section 69C of the Act, it becomes obligatory on the part of the appellant to explain, to the satisfaction of the AO, the source of expenditure made by the appellant of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The appellant during the course of assessment and appellate proceedings has failed to prove the source of expenditure. In view of the facts discussed above, the impugned issue is decision in against of the appellant. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- is confirmed. Grounds 11 is dismissed." 24. Before us the learned AR submitted that assessee has contended that there is no admission of cash paid by any of the director or employee of the assessee company. It is also contended that there is no admission of receipt of cash by M/s Aggarwal Spun Pipes or M/s Verticast Concrete (P) Ld. It is further contended that the payments were through banking channel only and it had never ma....