TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1315
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....different entities of the group arranging of borrowings from different financial Institutions /bankers. He had been filing his return of income regularly year after year disclosing salary income only from the Homeland group as a salaried employee and he has no business income as such. So, he is not maintaining any books of accounts. 3. There was a search and seizure operations at the residential and business premises of 'Homeland group' on 26.02.2020 since, the Assessee was looking after the entire financial affairs of the group as a whole, including borrowings and reimbursement of loans as taken from the various financial Institutions/banks, he was also subjected to search on 26.02.2020. 4. During the course of search, certain loose papers were seized from the premises of the assessee. Copies of the same have been placed in the Paper Book pages 2 & 3, in which, the 'cash credit limits' as sanctioned by the financial institutions to each of the group concerns, management of the of LC Margin/Collateral value of the security, as offered by each entity of the group and other relevant details of the group concerns had been recorded. Besides, certain excel sheets were found, in which,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny personal books of accounts. These loose sheets have nothing to do with the financial affairs of the assessee. Further, it was held that the seized document had to be read as a whole. In Asstt. Year 2018-19, the same observations were made about such document and the Assessing Officer did not accept that figures mentioned therein, trelate to the job profile of assessee of managing the 'financial affairs' of the 'Homeland group'. Majority of these figures are projected and the rough tabulation, regarding loans to be raised and, accordingly, made an addition of Rs. 46,67,054/- in respect of 'Rani Ki Jagraon' and Rs. 24,19,800/- in respect of 'Dr. Jagjeet Chawla' u/s 68 and 69C of the Act respectively. 7. The Ld. CIT (A) analyzed each and every document found during search and the relevant documents have been reproduced at page 20 and 21 of the order of CIT (A) for Asstt. Year 2018-19 and also in the order for Asstt. Year 2017-18. He held that the assessee is only deriving salary income from the 'Homeland group' and the figures reflected in various documents are, in fact, of bank borrowings and projections. There is no finding of the AO that the assessee is engaged in the business ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....papers and contention of the assessee and Assessing Officer in the assessment order and the remand report, he held that it is an accepted fact that the assessee was handling financial matters of the group, as it was evident from the two seized documents found during the course of search, where certain credit facilities as enjoyed by the group concern have been mentioned and then the particulars of the financial position of each company have been recorded. Copies of such documents have been reproduced at page 53 of the order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) on the basis of his finding in Asstt. Year 2017-18 & 2018-19, held that there is no seized material available, which suggested that the appellant was not an employee of the group. In fact, he is a key person of the group in arranging finances. He further, held that the seized papers itself establish that some of the names of the parties, from whom, borrowings have been made and the amount mentioned therein are as per the books of accounts of different group concerns. Such borrowings have been recorded therein. Thus, it is established from the two seized documents that the financial health of the group was not in order and defaults had b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as a closing balance of Rs. 42,82,411/- as on 31.03.2017. 7. Weather the Ld. CIT(A) justified in deleting the edition, based on cognizable evidence related to assessee? 8. The appellant craves leave to add. amend modify, very omit or substitute any of the aforesaid ground of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal." ITA No.773/Chd/2023 for AY 2018-2019 "1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the provisions of section 292C and holding that no primary or corroborating evidence exist which can correlation of the seized document which any business outside books of account being carried-out by assessee? 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the provisions of section 292C and holding that AO failed to prove that the entity named "BTD 2011", Whose ledgers were found during the course of search at the premises owned by the assessee and thereby contradicting provisions of section 292C? 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 46,67,054/- made an account of unexplained unsecured loans u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBEof the Income Tax Act, 1961? ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o Rs. 36,18,191/- as stated in the said page exactly matched with the ledger of Dr. Jagjeet Chawla. 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) justified in deleting the edition, based on cognizable evidence related to assessee? 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid ground of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal." 11. The assessee has filed cross objections for each of the above said years as under:- C.O.NO.31/Chd./2024 (A) for Asstt.Year 2017-18 "1. That the Ld. CIT(A), Ludhiana has erred in dismissing the ground of appeal with regard to mechanical approval accorded by the Addl. CIT, Ludhiana u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act and the finding of the CIT(A) in para 5.4 of the order is contrary to the evidence furnished during the course of hearing before him. 2. That the approval having been accorded by the Ld. Addl. CIT in a mechanical manner and, as such, the assessment as framed by the Assessing Officer deserves to be quashed as per the recent judgment of Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh Bench Chandigarh in the case of M/s Ganesh Builders & Others in ITA No. 452/Chd/2022. 4. That respondent craves leave to a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issue regarding the condonation of delay be decided on merits. After going through the contents of the application filed by the assessee and affidavit, the delay in filing the cross objections for Asstt. Year 2017-17 & 2018-19 by 236 days are condoned. 14. On the merits of the case, the Ld. Departmental Representative relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and contended that the addition has been made on the basis of loose documents recovered from the residence of assessee and, thus, the burden lay upon the assessee to discharge the onus cast upon him which has not been discharged Thus, he justified the addition made by the AO in all these years. 15. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee argued at length that it is an admitted fact that the assessee is a salaried employee of the group and the documents found during the course of search and particularly, two documents, which have been scanned by the CIT(A) at page 53 of the order for Asstt. Year 2019-20 (clear copy has been placed in Paper Book for Asstt. Year 2017-18 at pages 2 to 3) and for the sake of reference, such documents are being reproduced as under:- 16. A bare look at such seized document clearly demonstrate that in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is finding after considering the remand report by AO from page 52 of the order for Asstt. Year 2019-20 and then from page 60, the following finding has been recorded:- "(vi) On similar facts, similar addition in the case of Sh Sanjeev Mittal for the AY 2018-19 has been deleted by my predecessor holding that BTD-2011 is not a valid document (vii) In the present case, while determining the sanctity of the seized paper and ascertaining the year of addition, the AO relied upon the transaction of Dr Jagjeet Chawla. As already discussed above as well as in the appellate order in the appellant's own case for the AY 2018-19, the addition made by the AO on the basis of transaction with Dr Jagjeet Chawla was deleted. It is also observed that the case of Dr Jagjeet Chawla was reopened u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of this document/ information only and no adverse inference was drawn by the National Faceless Assessment Centre in his case and no addition was made. Therefore, one of the key foundations for interpreting this document and making addition does not survive. (viii) There has been no material on record to suggest that the appellant was engaged In some business activity. At....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....holding them as cash unsecured loans received by the assessee. The assessee has been admittedly a salaried person involved in handling the financial matters of his group companies. The assessee has been found to be engaged in any business activity. The said issue has duly explained by the appellant in his response to the SCN filed during the et proceedings. On the other hand, the view taken by of the AO has not been pond in view of the findings in the case of Sh. Sanjeev Mittal, in the case of Dr.Jagjeet Chawla and in the view of above discussion. (xi). In view of the above facts and discussion, I am of the considered view that the appellant has been able to discharge his burden of prove in respect of this document, whereas, there is no other material available on record to suggest otherwise. The appellant is a salaried person of the GH crop of group and the document, on the basis of which, addition of Rs. 40,84,04,230/- has been made, does not contain transaction of unsecured cash loan received by the appellant. I find merit in the arguments put forward by the appellant with supporting documentary evidence in this regard. There is no seized document or result of enquiry which su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....19. We are of this considered view that the findings given by the ld. CIT(A) on merit in appeals for A.Ys. 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 are very sound and logical and needs no interference. Thus, Revenue's appeal in all the above Assessment Years are dismissed on merit. 18. In the cross objections, there is a common ground that the approval u/s 153D have been granted by the Addl. CIT (Central) in a mechanical manner. The assessee has placed before us at pages 36 to page 39 of the paper book, for Asstt. Year 2018-19, wherein, the AO forwarded for the approval in the case of assessee, listed at serial No.51, alongwith approval for 105 other cases, from Asstt. Year 2014-15 to 2020-21 was sought and on the same day, the said approval in 105 cases was accorded by the Addl. CIT (Central) as per pages 38 to 39 of the Paper Book. 19. Further to that, certain more evidences were furnished by the assessee that even on 30th of September 2021 in some other cases, the approval were sent on 30th of September and on the same day, the approval was granted by the Addl.CIT (Central). Thus, under such circumstances, it was argued that there is no judicious application of mind by the Worthy Addl.CIT....