TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1778
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... A.Y.2018-19 as a lead appeal. ITA No. 99/NAG/2023 (A.Y. 2018-19) 3. Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal in its appeal: - "1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,46,91,237/- made by on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of I. T. Act, which has correctly been added by Assessing officer in the income of the assessee considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing assessee's appeal without considering the fact that the document No. B- 14 (page 1-31), based on which the addition was made is self hand written by Shri Atul Yamsanwar and found in his residential premises during the search action. 3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,46,91,237/- made by Assessing Officer on the ground of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of I.T. Act, without considering the fact that same amount of addition of Rs. 1,46,91,237/- has been taxed in the hand of Shri Atul Yamsawar as undisclosed income, for the A.Y. 2018-19, and the ld. CIT(A) has found it as true and correct and further upheld the addition. 4. Any other question of law and fact to be raised at the tim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that total shares purchased by assessee from Shri Atul Yamsanwar is 44,94, 161/-. B) In Asstt. Year 2018-19 assessee has not purchased any shares from Shri Atul Yamsanwar and in Asstt. Year 2019-20 has purchased 14,38,250 shares only. Factual submission is as per legal evidence on record. Action of A.O. in making addition for purchase of 44,94,161 shares is contrary to legal evidence on record and is factually incorrect. C) A.O. has made the addition by referring to various loose papers which are scanned and pasted in the assessment order. Perusal of seized document scanned and pasted does not indicate name of assessee. It does not indicate that assessee has paid cash during Asstt. Year 2018-19 and 2019-20 for which addition has been made at the hands of assessee. No date and amount for which addition is made is found noted in the seized document. Seized documents are not found from assessee and same are dumb documents requiring no consideration at the hands of assessee for determination of assessable income. D) Purchase of share of M/s Orange City Housing Finance Ltd. are properly recorded in books of account and entire payment has been made through p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at Rs. 13.85 per share are accepted without inviting any adverse observation. On above factual position conclusion of A.O. that during Asstt. Year 2018-19 and 2019-20 assessee has paid consideration at Rs. 14.15 per share in cash is having no justification/rationale. I) In satisfaction note (P- 6 & 7) to issue notice u/s 153C A.O. has computed the sale of shares at Rs. 15/- per share to compute cash payment at Rs. 11,93,987/-. In assessment order A.O. has computed the sale price at Rs. 28/- pe share for no valid justification and is unjustified. J) Loose papers on the basis of which addition is made is found from third party and not from the assessee. Loose paper does not have handwriting of assessee. It has been reasonably explained by the person from whom such documents were found and seized. Thus addition made in the case of assessee is unjustified. K) Loose documents are in the nature of dumb notings calling for no adverse consideration at the hands of assessee." 9. Ld.CIT(A) had granted full relief by holding as below: - "4.1 The appellant has raised 9 grounds of appeal, out of which ground no. 1 and 9 are general in nature and therefore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....50/- as per Schedule G Loan and Advances. As per the balance sheet for the year ending on 31.03.2019 the investment in share of M/s Orange City Housing Finance Ltd. is shown at Rs. 10,66,16,354/-. Ledger account of purchase of shares shows opening investment at Rs. 3,06,94.245/ and closing investment is shown at Rs. 10,66,16,354/-. Shares from various persons have been acquired at the price per share @ Rs. 13.85. Total number of shares acquired during the year are 54,68,800 which includes 1438250 shares purchased from Shri Atul Yamsanwar. The appellant has purchased 4030550 number of shares from persons other than Shri Atul Yamsanwar. The aggregate number of shares as at the close of accounting year is 7891971 in number (2423171 + 5468800). In the annual return at page 10 share holding of appellant is shown at 7891971 shares in number and same matches with shares shown in financial records. During the financial year ending on 31.03.2020, M/s Orange City Housing Finance Ltd. has made Investment of Rs. 11,82,94,906/- in shares. As per Ledger account of shares of company, it indicates that 843217 shares have been acquired from Shri Atul Yamsanwar at the cost of Rs. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial Year 2017-18. viii. Audited Financial Statement as on 31/03/2019 in the case of assessee. ix. Ledger A/c of Share of Orange City Housing Finance Ltd. for the period from 01/04/2018 to 31/03/2019. x. Ledger Account of Advance for Shares - of OCHFL - Atul Yamsanwar Sir for the period from 01/04/2018 to 31/03/2019 xi. Form No. MGT-7 (Annual Return) for Financial Year 2018-19. xii. Audited Financial Statement as on 31/03/2020 in the case of assessee xiii. Ledger A/c of Share of Orange City Housing Finance Ltd. for the period from 01/04/2019 to 31/03/2020 xiv. Ledger A/c of Advance for Shares of OCHFL - Atul Yamsanwar Sir for the period from 01/04/2019 to 31/03/2020 xv. Form No. MGT-7 (Annual Return) for Financial Year 2019-20 xvi. Assessment order u/s 143(3) in the case of assessee vide order dated 13/07/2021 for Asstt. Year 2017-18 xvii. Assessment order u/s 143(3) in the case of assessee vide order dated 13/07/2021 for Asstt. Year 2020-21. 11. Ld.AR also relied on the following Judgments in support of his submissions: - i. CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundram (2207) 294 ITR 0049 (SC) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....down under Section 68 of the Act are satisfied. Section 68 states that there must be books of accounts or any books with credit entry. The said Act reads thus: "Section 68: Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous years and the assessee offers no explanations about nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the assessing officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year." The language of the Law is vague and subjective, thus making us rely on an Apex court decision in the case of CBI vs. V.C. Shukla ((1998) 3 SCC 410), wherein the relevant portion reads thus: "Collection of sheet fastened or bound together so as to form material whole. Loose sheets or scraps of paper cannot be termed as books." In this regard, it is relevant to extract Section 69A of the Act, which reads thus: "69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Indian Evidence Act without corroborating with other evidences. In view of the conspectus above facts and circumstances and in light of the judicial precedents, there is no merit in the Revenue's appeal and accordingly, same is dismissed. It is worthwhile to note that addition made in the hands of person searched, is not of relevance because such addition even if confirmed at level of Ld.CIT(A) cannot be said to sacrosanct and final. At this juncture, it will be pertinent to refer to the operating portion of the judgment of the Ld.CIT(A) in the case of Atul M. Yamsanwar, wherein Ld.CIT(A) has sustained the addition as under: - "I have carefully considered the submissions of the AR of the appellant and have found no merit in the same. It is difficult to comprehend how the details noted by appellant himself in his handwriting should be considered as rough notings. The fact of the matter is that the calculation of transfer of shares is corroborated by the fact that such transaction has actually taken place. The calculation of the transaction appears at many pages seized during the search operation from the appellant's residence. The calculations are in appellant's....