TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1315
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffairs of the group as a whole, including reimbursement of loan by 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve been filed. Further, it was held that the assessee was not maintaining any 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e finding of CIT(A) is from page 48 of the order and after considering the loose 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 doc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the period 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018 and it was found that the ledger account Rs. 42,82,411/- as 01.04.2017 which means there was 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entry of Dr. Jagjeet Chawla on the said page was cross-referred to another seized page i.e. ledger of account of doctor Jagjeet Chawla for the period 01.04.2016 to 06.02.2019 and it was found that the entry of balance amounting to 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, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e belief that since the appropriate relief has already been granted to him by the order of CIT(A) so nothing was required to be done by the assessee. It was the counsel advised that the Cross objections need to be filed and, thus, it was argued that delay in filing the cross objections be condoned. The Ld. DR argued that the 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, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee. There is no material on record to suggest that the appellant was engaged in some business activity. It is found that the transactions as recorded in the seized excel sheets do not belong to the assessee at all. Even in the remand report nothing adverse was pointed against the assessee, The CIT(A) has threadbare given his 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Ltd. v. CIT 253 ITR 464 (Gujarat) DCIT v. Kanakia Hospitality P. Ltd. 110 Taxmann.com 4 (Mumbai ITAT) Dhanvarsha Builders v. DCIT 102 ITD 3751 (Pune ITAT) In the light of the above findings and stated legal position, it is held that the Assessing Officer has erred in interpreting the seized document and the so-called transactions reflected therein to be belonging to the appellant and 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e SCN filed during the course of assessment proceedings. On the other hand, the view taken by of the AO has not been proved in view of the findings in the case of Sh. Sanjeev Mittal by my predecessor and also the case of Dr. Jagjeet Chawla by the AO National Faceless Assessment Centre. Same findings have been given by the CIT(A) in the order for Asstt. Year 2018-19 wherein he has deleted the additions made in A.Y. 2017-18 and A.Y. 2018-19. 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 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nesh Builders and S.P. Singla Construction Pvt. Ltd.', as cited above. 21. The Ld. Departmental Representative argued that the approval has been granted in a judicial manner and it is not mechanical in nature since the Ld. Addl. CIT is apprised of the facts from time to time by officers/authorities below. So, signing approval letters of many cases simultaneously does not mean that the Addl. CIT has not applied in mind. The DR further argued extensively on this basis and requested for dismissing the technical ground taken by the Assessee in the Cross Objections. 22. Since we have already dismissed Revenue's appeals in the above-mentioned assessment years on merit, we are not inclined to give our findings on technical issue raised by the Assessee in the captioned Cross Objections. Accordingly, Revenue's appeals for A.Ys. 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 are dismissed on merit and as such, the Cross Objections of the Assessee also stand dismissed for statistical purposes. 23. In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections of the Assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16.06.2025 ============= Document 1 Atresure-A1 10-Jan....