TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 208
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her sources. The original return was filed by the assessee on 09.03.2010 at an income of Rs. 1,36,94,410/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 03.11.2016 at the premises of the assessee comprising M/s VVIP and SSG group of cases and later the case of the assessee was centralized to DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad. The assessee filed return of income u/s 153A of the Act at the income in the return originally filed. The Ld. AO has made addition of alleged unexplained unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 9,69,47,724/-; addition on account of alleged concealment of income amounting to Rs. 62,71,749/-; and addition on account of alleged unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,30,01,748/-. The assessee had partly succeeded before the ld.CIT(A) for which the Revenue and the assessee both are in appeal and the grounds of the respective appeals are reproduced below:- 2.1 Grounds raised by the Revenue:- "1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO to the tune of Rs. 62,71,749/- on account of difference of incriminating documents extracted from the Hard Disc seized fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... apply to the assessee. 5. That the Ld.CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the addition even though the addition was made without allowing an opportunity to the appellant to cross verify the acceptance made by the CMD of the VVIP group. 6. That the Ld.CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the addition amounting to Rs 1,30,01,748.00 even when the statement given by the CMD of the VVIP group was retracted by him. 7. That the Ld.CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in rejecting the appellant's appeal as regards the addition amounting to Rs 1,30,01,748.00 without considering the fact that even during the course of search not even an iota of evidence has been found wherefrom it could be stated that the appellant had made any cash payment. 8. That the Ld.CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in rejecting the appellant's appeal as regards the addition amounting to Rs 1,30,01,748.00 without considering the fact that the payment of Rs 6.00 lakhs made by the appellant has been forfeited by the VVIP group and had the appellant paid "Cash" over and above the payment by b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....corded by their directors etc. the same is not binding or in no way proves that the appellant had given certain 'on money'. Even otherwise the Ld. A.O relied on some acceptance made by a third party regarding cash given by the appellant, without any corroborative evidence found with the appellant which is unjust and not reliable and any evidence at the back of the appellant has no evidentiary value. Further it is submitted that Agreement for purchase of immovable property was for a sale consideration of Rs 63,62,368.00 and had alleged cash been paid by the appellant then why the appellant paid just Rs 6 lacs and the deal was cancelled. Had the appellant paid such an amount the flat would have been purchased by the appellant. 4. The facts with regard to next issue of addition of Rs. 62,71,749/- are that during the course of search at the premises of M/s SSG Infratech Pvt Ltd a hard disk was seized wherefrom a personal balance sheet and profit & loss account of Shri Harjit Sahni was extracted for the F.Y 2015-2016 i.e., A.Y 2016- 2017. 4.1 The case of ld. AO is that assessee has submitted his return at an income of Rs 1,36,94,110/- whereas as per the abstract of profit & loss a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he difference. Ld. Counsel has submitted that the ld. AO in his assessment order failed to rebut the contention of the appellant and passed an order ignoring the facts and reply filed by the appellant. 5. The next addition relates to an addition u/s 68 amounting to Rs. 9.69,47,724/-. The facts relevant same are that alleged unexplained unsecured loans amounting to Rs 9,69,47,724 were added. The case of ld. AO is that during the course of search at the premises of M/s SSG Ingratech Pvt Ltd a hard disk was seized wherefrom a personal balance sheet and profit & loss account of Shri Harjit Sahni was extracted for the F.Y 2015-2016 ie A.Y 2016- 2017. 5.1 The case of assessee is that the said personal balance sheet and profit & loss account extracted from the hard disk did not contained complete entries relating to the bank accounts of the appellant and even as regards the income of the appellant. Further as per law the appellant is also not liable to maintain or produce any regular books of accounts including balance sheet and the profit & loss account as he does not have any income from business or profession. The said incomplete balance sheet extracted from the hard disk seized ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mits that the assessment proceedings in the case of the appellant were undertaken at the fag end of the limitation period and the reply submitted by the appellant was not accepted. 5.4 It was further submitted that the amount of Rs 4,71,64,724/- as appearing to be outstanding from M/s SSG Infratech Pvt Ltd is also not correct as the same has been repaid by the appellant during the year under appeal and no amount is outstanding as at the year end, the fact of which may be verified from the case records which are also with the Ld AO. 6. On hearing rival contentions and on perusal of material before us and taking up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1133/Del/2021, we find that primarily the assessee now contest grounds No.1 and 3 to 9 which cumulatively question the sustenance of an amount of Rs. 1,30,01,748/- by the ld.CIT(A) which was allegedly 'on money' given by the assessee. 6.1 In this context, at the outset the ld. AR has submitted that primarily the assessment was concluded u/s 153A of the Act which itself is not sustainable as the alleged document relied was seized from the resicence of Mr. Praveen Tyagi, CMD of VVIP group. It was submitted that since it is a docu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i High Court judgement in the case of Assam Company (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 133 Taxman 159 (Gau) and the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sanjay Sawhney Vs. Pr. CIT [2020] 116 Taxmann.com 701 (Del) can be relied wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that the assessee as respondent has the right to raise jurisdictional ground under Rule 27 orally. The relevant part of same is reproduced below; "14. It emerges that Rule 27 ought not to be applied narrowly and therefore we cannot agree with Mr. Hossain, that by permitting the Appellant- Assessee (respondent before the Tribunal) to invoke Rule 27 before the Tribunal, to challenge the ground decided against him, scope of the subject matter of appeal would get expanded. We must also bear in mind that jurisdictional issue sought to be urged by the appellant under Rule 27 is interlinked with the other grounds of appeal, and its adjudication would have a direct impact on the outcome of the appeal. The validity of the proceedings goes into the root of the matter and for this reason, the assessee should not be precluded from raising a challenge to that part of the order which was decided against him by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the admitted facts available on record. 8. Now, admittedly, this document which was relied for making the addition of Rs. 1,30,01,748/- was found in the search of residence of Mr. Praveen Tyagi, CMD of VVIP group. There is nothing on record to show that the assessee has any stake in VVIP group. Rather, as per the impugned order, the assessee has taken an unsecured loan from VVIP group. Admittedly, the search were under separate warrants qua Mr. Praveen Tyagi, CMD of VVIP group and Mr. Harjeet Singh Sahni independently for search of his residential premises. The disputed addition is with regard to a personal booking of flat of the present assessee. The nature of transaction giving rise to disputed addition is not one which arises out of any business operations of the assessee which have connection with the business operations of the VVIP group. The ld. AO has merely relied the statement of Mr. Praveen Tyagi and the fact that he had surrendered this amount of on money for taxation. On appreciation of the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A), we find that to sustain the addition, the ld.CIT(A) has taken into consideration the impugned incriminating document which had certain details of ....