TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1637
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....09.2019 & 14.10.2022 for Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, therefore, the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. First we take up Revenue's appeal for AY 2013-14 as lead case. REVENUE'S APPEAL : ITA No.1553/Del/2018 (AY 2013-14) 3. The Revenue in AY 2013-14 has raised the following grounds of appeal :- "1. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) has not erred in facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 83,80,85,255/- made by AO on account of Unexplained credit u/s 68. 2. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) has not erred in facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,29,74,904/- made by AO on account of Unexplained credit u/s 68. 3. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) has not erred in facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,33,040/- made by AO on account of Unexplained credit u/s 68. 4. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) has not erred in facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,33,67,668/- made by AO on account of out of books sales. 5. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) has n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x as appearing in the digital data. In the absence of the submissions, the Assessing Officer relying on the statement of the Accounts Head and non-submission of any document before him, he proceeded to make the addition by invoking section 68 of the Act with the observation that the credit entries in the case of sundry creditors are made with the narration under the head particulars show "cash" was written on these pages. Similarly, other additions were also made by the Assessing Officer relating to unsecured loans of Rs. 3,29,74,904/-, bank overdraft account and sales registration. 6. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and assessee made detailed submissions and submitted supporting documents. The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer and Assessing Officer submitted the remand report with the observation that during search, certain documents which are identified as Annexure A-6 Party RU-1 and the following entries were retrieved from the above annexure and the same is tabulated below :- Amount On account of Para no. of assessment order Rs. 83,80,85,255/- Sundry Creditors Para 8 & 9 Rs. 3,29,74,904/- S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The AO shall reopen the proceedings of earlier period in this respect and carry out the assessment on the facts. The summary sheet is listed below- 5.2.3.7. Now, the document is to be examined vis a vis the appellant and the appellant cannot brush aside his onus here. The summary of transactions is as under- i. Opening consolidated Debit Balance - Rs. 6,61,18,988.19 ii. Debit entries during the period - Rs. 76,74,24,315.38 iii. Credit Entries during the period - Rs. 83,80,85,255.57 iv. Closing Credit Balance - Rs. 45,41,95.00 5.2.3.8. The summary sheet indicates the fund flow as above. The addition shall be made by the AO in the hands of the relevant entity as directed and as per material and panchnama on record. It is trite law that, no addition can be made on the basis of documents found from a third party without examining the third party and linking the contents of the documents with him. In this regard, we may also refer to the following jurisprudence- i) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) ACIT Vs. Lata Mangeshkar (Miss) ii) 301 ITR 134 (MP) Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT iii) 300 ITR 426 (All) CIT v. Salek Chand ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and has to be seen in the light of various transactions. She submitted that as per the A-36 document found during the search, it clearly shows that there is opening balance of Rs. 6,69,04,983/- mentioned in the name of the assessee. This document cannot be rejected and she heavily relied on the findings and submissions of the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT (A). 11. On the other hand, ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice pages 18 to 22 and 22 to 24 of the assessment order wherein Assessing Officer has discussed the issue. He submitted that as per the AO's own observation, these documents were found from RU-1 at the address Sayana Road, Bulandshahar which is a digital data which was in the name of Rama Ex. This document was not found in the search of the assessee which was evident from the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer. He brought to our notice page 28 of the appellate order and also brought to our notice page 104 and 105 of the paper book which is the Panchnama of RU-1 wherein there is no mention of the name of the assessee. Further he brought to our notice pages 14 to 22 of the paper book which is the Document No.A- 36 which belongs to and in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earch enquiries, the assessee has submitted the working of Rs. 50,20,000/- as under :- Explanation / Working of Amount Surrendered Rama Royal Residency Assessment Year 2013-14 Particulars Amount Amount Gross Receipts (as per A-1 to A-14 of RU-2) 1,48,00,000 Less : Receipts by Cheque 71,00,000 Receipts in cash 77,00,000 Less : Transfer from Rama Group 22,00,000 Cash Receipts 55,00,000 Less : Cash Payments 12,26,000 Gross Payments 38,37,682 Less Payments by cheques 26,11,710 Cash payments 12,25,972 Rounded Off 12,26,000 Un reconciled cash 42,74,000 Amount surrendered 50,20,000 14. AO observed that vide office letter dated 09.12.2016, assessee was asked to furnish the explanation/documentary proof in support of the transaction appearing in the seized material. He observed that all the payments made by cheque as declared by the assessee are appearing as cash transactions in the seized material. Further he observed that there is no entity in the name of Rama Group, therefore, the assessee cannot be given be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arties. The assessee also surrendered an amount of Rs. 52.50 lakhs to compensate the above. Therefore, there is no loss to the Revenue. Accordingly, we do not see any reason to disturb the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, ground no.5 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 19. With regard to ground no.6 of Revenue's appeal and Ground No.8 raised by the assessee, the relevant facts are, during assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed from page 5 of the Annexure A-19 of the Party RU-2 seized during the search proceedings found at Rama Kutir, D.M. Road, Bulandsahar (UP) and relevant document was reproduced at page 26 of the assessment order. During post-search proceedings, assessee was asked to explain the abovesaid documents. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has only explained the contents of the abovesaid pages without explaining whether these are supported by any documentary evidence and if they are accounted in the books. He observed that from the basic perusal of the books of account, it is apparent that these are not accounted in the regular books of account. He further observed that details contained in the ledger of S-R under the ledger....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....." 22. Ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the findings of the Assessing Officer. 23. On the other hand, ld. AR of the assessee relied on the findings of the ld. CIT(A). 24. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that ld. CIT(A) has considered the detailed submission of the assessee and remand report. He observed that the book balance in the seized material excluding the opening balance of Rs. 8,50,000/-. The assessee also filed an appeal and raised ground no.8 in this regard. 25. We observed that Assessing Officer, from the perusal of the page no.5 of Annexure A-19 of Party RU-2 seized from the residence of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar at Rama Kutir, D.M. Road, Bulandsahar, U.P. reproduced the following at page 26 of assessment order, which is reproduced hereunder :- 26. We observed that there is a credit of Rs. 5,50,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- during the year and also there are debit balances of Rs. 2,13,000/-. We observed that there is opening balance of Rs. 4,01,000/-. The opening balance is not a transaction relevant for the current assessment year. Since total credit relevant for the current assessment year is Rs. 8,50,000/- excluding opening....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Ld. DR objected to the above submissions and she also brought to our notice pages 37 to 40 of the appellate order wherein assessee has made submissions submitting the purchase and sales register and Profit & Loss account of Rama Central Store. She submitted that ld. CIT (A) after considering the above submissions wrongly deleted the addition by restricting the addition to the extent of Rs. 5,26,802/- as the reasonable profit, the assessee should have earned in this transaction and also observed that the basic investment shall be taxed in the assessment year 2009-10 as the activities were started in that year as per the documents seized by the Revenue. She prayed that the addition was deleted merely on the basis of submissions made by the assessee and prayed that the addition may be sustained. 29. On the other hand, ld. AR of the assessee relied on the submissions made before the ld. CIT (A) and remand report which is placed at page 19 of the appellate order and relied on the findings of the ld. CIT (A). Ld. AR submitted that the addition is based on the material found during search as RU-1 and these transactions belong to the entity Rama Central Store and it is not belongs to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in not quashing the impugned assessment order u/s 153A/143(3) and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in. sustaining the addition made by Ld. AO to the extent of Rs. 6,69,04,983/- and further erred in giving directions to Ld. AO in bringing to tax the said amount in the hands of assessee in the relevant period which is highly unjustified and not sustainable on various factual and legal grounds and the same has been done by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice. 3. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT (A) in sustaining the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 6,69,04,983/- is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not deleting the balance addition of Rs. 77,11,80,272/- (i.e. Rs. 83,80,85,255/- - Rs. 6,69,04,983/-) on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y to facts & law and was framed without giving adequate opportunity of hearing and in violation of principles or natural justice and more so when no incriminating material has been found as a result of search and the same deserves to be quashed." 32. Ground No.1 of assessee's appeal for AY 2013-14 is general in nature, hence does not require any adjudication. 33. With regard to Grounds No.2 to 7 raised by the assessee, since there is no prejudice caused to the assessee and since we have already dismissed the grounds taken by the Revenue and also assessee has not pressed these grounds, accordingly the abovesaid grounds are dismissed. 34. Ground No.8 raised by the assessee is decided against the assessee while adjudicating ground no.6 of Revenue's appeal as above. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 35. Ground no.9 raised by the assessee is decided in favour of the assessee while dealing with ground no.7 of Revenue's appeal as above. Accordingly, this ground is allowed. 36. Ground Nos.10 & 11 are not pressed, hence dismissed as not pressed. 37. In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the appeal for AY 2013-1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lakhs is part of the above Rs. 50 lakhs transaction made during assessment years 2008-09 to 2014-15. Since the assessee was asked to explain the details, the assessee could not furnish any detail. He submitted that Assessing Officer has rejected the same and proceeded to make the addition in the hands of the assessee. Further he brought to our notice pages 14 to 17 of the appellate order wherein ld. CIT (A) has considered the detailed submissions of the assessee and partly allowed subject to furnishing all details before the Assessing Officer by relying on the findings of the first appellate authority also in AY 2009-10 as under :- "iii. the document referred is clearly indicating unrecorded transactions including inflow and outflows of funds as the appellant could not furnish any evidence about such entries having been reflected in the declared income for the period/s relevant. The finding in respect of initial fund inflow of Rs. 50,00,000/- sustaining it in hands of the appellant, is clearly impacting the subsequent transactions reflected in this appeal also. Though the paper indicated unaccounted set of transactions, the addition of Rs 20 Lakh shall tantamount to double....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d during the year has reduced the opening balance of Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, it is part and parcel of transactions made by the assessee in the earlier assessment year. We observed that in AY 2009-10, an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs was added as income of the assessee and the same was sustained by the coordinate Bench of the ITAT vide ITA No.7428/Del/2017 dated 18.05.2022. As per the record, there is opening balance of Rs. 50 lakhs clearly indicate that the transactions of Rs. 20 lakhs made during the year which is return/refund of the amount taken in the past clearly indicate that Rs. 20 lakhs is part of the addition made during AY 2009-10. Therefore, we are inclined to agree with the submissions of the assessee and accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs in the current assessment year. Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 44. With regard to ground no.2, the ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice that addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 94,34,098/- on the basis of Annexure A-40, Party RU-1 alleged as undisclosed turnover of Rama Central Store. The relevant facts were already discussed in Ground No.7 in Rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 49. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 is partly allowed. ASSESSEE'S APPEAL : ITA NO.8443/DEL/2019 (AY 2011-12) AND REVENUE'S APPEAL : ITA NO.9317/DEL/2019 (AY 2011-12) 47. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not deleting the addition of Rs. 55,79,038/- made by Ld. AO vide para 8.2 page 21-22 of the assessment order and has erred in sustaining a sum of Rs. 10,67,500/- and that too without any basis, material and evidence available on record. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not deleting the addition of Rs. 48,00,000/- made by Ld. AO vide para 8.2 page 21-22 of assessment order and that too without any basis, material and evidence available on record. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not deleting the addition of Rs. 1,19,10,007/- made by Ld. AO vide para 9 page 22-23 of assessment order and has erred in sustaining the same to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on account of out of the books sale found during the search and seizure operation 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in giving direction that only the profits of the transactions should be taxed and not the transactions recorded of Rs. 1,19,10,007/- without appreciating that the date wise transactions have been recorded in the books, based on the data seized and all of those were out of the books and concealed from the Department. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in deleting the additions of Rs. 8,69,980/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee was never able to furnish the sources of the money utilised for buying the agricultural land." 49. Ground Nos.1 to 4 raised by the Revenue and Ground Nos.1 & 2 raised by the assessee are on the same issue and the relevant facts are, certain documents were found during the search which are identified as Annexure A-19 seized from the Party RU-2, at the residence of the assessee at Bulandshahr, U.P. which contained the financial transactions with Mohit Kumar Shahdara and Shahdara Didi which are reproduced at pages 19 & 20 of the assessment order involving transactions of Rs. 48....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment order are clearly inter-linked as the pay out and receipts are linked together. Therefore, peak sum of these transactions is sustainable being the base investment in the specific endeavor. Accordingly, he upheld the peak credit amount of Rs. 10,67,500/-. 52. Aggrieved assessee as well as Revenue are in appeal before us. 53. At the time of hearing, ld. DR of the Revenue brought to our notice pages 19 to 22 of the appellate order. She submitted that these transactions which were found only during search and came to the light that these financial transactions were carried on by the assessee with his relatives. She submitted that these transactions are unaccounted and found during the search for which assessee failed to submit any relevant documents, therefore, addition made by the AO is proper and prayed that the above addition may be sustained. 54. On the other hand, ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice written submissions made before the ld. CIT (A) and also remand report of the AO. He also brought to our notice rejoinder to the remand report filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT (A). He reiterated that the said documents do not belong to the assessee as it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the addition made during the current assessment year i.e. 2011-12. 57. With regard to addition of Rs. 55,79,038/- we observed that there were several cash transactions recorded during the year involving debit of Rs. 55,79,038/- and refund of Rs. 50,66,000/-. We observed that ld. CIT (A) has considered the above transactions and observed that there is a peak credit of Rs. 10,66,500/- with assessee and sustained the same instead of sustaining whole debit transaction of Rs. 55,79,038/-. After due consideration, we observed that the assessee has transacted with his own sister and there is a continuous transaction during the year including the payment of Rs. 55,79,038/- and receipt of Rs. 50,66,000/- and there is outstanding balance of Rs. 5,13,038/-. Since it is a related party transaction, we are inclined to direct the AO to make addition of outstanding balance of Rs. 5,13,038/- instead of Rs. 10,67,000/- which is the peak credit proposed by the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, ground nos.1 to 4 raised by the Revenue are dismissed and ground nos.1 & 2 raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 58. With regard to Ground Nos.5 & 6 raised by the Revenue and Ground No.3 of assessee's app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d any reason to disturb the same. Accordingly, ground no.7 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 63. Grounds No.4 to 7 of assessee's appeal are not pressed, hence dismissed as not pressed. 64. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2011-12 is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee AY 2011-12 is partly allowed. REVENUE'S APPEAL : ITA NO.9318/DEL/2019 (AY 2012-13) And ASSESSEE'S APPEAL : ITA NO.8444/DEL/2019 (AY 2012-13) 65. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as under :- "1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in deleting the additions of Rs. 6,61,18,988/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash sundry creditors appearing in trial balance u/s 68 of the IT Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in deleting the additions of Rs. 17,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of loans appearing in trial balance u/s 68 of the IT Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in deleting the additions of Rs. 6,61,18,988/- & Rs. 17,00,000/- without appreciating that these were based on the documents seized from their premises and no explanation has been given by the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n sustaining the same to the extent, the profit of the transaction and that too by giving certain directions and without any basis, material and evidence available on record and without there being authority under the law. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in assuming jurisdiction u/s 153A and erred in passing the impugned order and that too without complying the mandatory conditions as laid down under the Income Tax Act and without found any incriminating material as a result of search warranting such additions. 6. That in my case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in assuming jurisdiction u/s 153A, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961." 67. With regard to Ground Nos.1 to 3 of Revenue's appeal, at the time of hearing, ld. DR of the Revenue submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rch in the case of the assessee and the same fact was accepted by the AO in the remand. He submitted that when document is not found from the search of the assessee, no addition can be made or presumption cannot be made in the hands of the assessee. Further he submitted that document no.A-36 was digital document for which there was no certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was brought on record. Therefore, addition cannot be made on this count itself. In this regard, he relied on the case of RituTuli vs. AO (supra). 71. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that certain documents were found during the search in the case of Rama Group of companies which are identified as document A-36 and RU-1. From the submissions, we observed that the document found during the search belongs to various entities of the Rama Group and its associate companies. The last Panchnama was in the name of RU-1 and it was observed that there is no mention of the assessee's name anywhere in the Panchnama. Therefore, all these materials found during the search belong to the Rama Group entities. Therefore, the addition should have been made in the hands ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs 13,13,038/- shall get deleted. This ground is disposed off as partly allowed subject to the above remarks. The AO is also directed to make a note to this effect in the folder for the AY 2009-10. The appellant has sought to explain away the sum of Rs. 401000/- without offering any substantive explanation about the nature and purport of the transaction, hence the explanation furnished therein is not acceptable as it does not overcome the reasons advanced by the AO. This amount gets upheld on the facts. These grounds are disposed off as partly allowed." 75. Ld. DR objected to the above findings and prayed that addition made by the AO may be sustained since all these documents were found during the search for which assessee has not offered any explanation. 76. On the other hand, ld. AR of the assessee relied on the detailed submissions filed before the ld. CIT (A) and also rejoinder to the remand report. 77. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the AO has made addition based on the ledger account for the period 01.06.2011 to 30.06.2011. We observed that amount of Rs. 5,13,038/- was already added in the previous assessment year whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by ignoring the fact that assessee has failed to offer any valid supporting document to verify that the narrations depicting transactions without bills were actually accounted for in the books of account. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 35,52,220/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of out of the books transaction voucher seized during the search operations by grossly ignoring the provisions of section 132(4A) of the Act. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,85,85,568/- made by the AO on account of out of the books sale found during the search and seizure operation. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in deleting the additions of Rs. 71,72,400/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee was never able to furnish the sources of the money utilised for buying the agricultural land." 85. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not deleting the addition of Rs. 11,65,77,710/- made by Ld. AO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 28.02.2014 at the various residential and business premises. The last authorization of search was executed on 22.04.2014. Certain incriminating documents were found during the search which pertained to assessment year under consideration. This being the assessment year of the search, notice u/s 143(2) was issued and served on the assessee. Several notices u/s 142(1) were issued on the assessee to comply the same. However, assessee has submitted the relevant information through e-portal. Based on the information available on record and various disclosures and surrenders were made by the assessee during search proceedings, the AO completed the assessment after considering the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to make following additions :- "1. Addition of Rs. 11,65,77,710/- as turnover comparison of the data seized from party. 2. Addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rs. 7,00,000/- for without bill + Rs. 2,00,000/- advance) 3. Addition of Rs. 32,52,220/- on account of out of transaction voucher found. 4. Addition of Rs. 46,40,000/- on account of unexplained money within section 69A of I.T Act. 5. Addition of Rs. 29,42,525/- on account of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Received on 2.02.2013 Total 5,46,50,000 78,00,000 Less: Previous Year receipts included in above receipts 78,00,000 4.68,50,000 Less: Expenses detailed below Batra Ji 4,50,000 BKDA 2,50,000 Exp. 2,11,36,497 R.K. Malik 6,00,000 Shobhat 16,57,505 Vijay Arc. 1,35,000 Salvr 6,50,000 2,48,79,002 Balance 2,19,70,998 Amount Surrendered 2,80,00,000 90. During assessment proceedings, AO observed that an amount of Rs. 11,65,77,710/- was reflected in the above chart as projected figure for the period. On enquiry with the assessee, assessee has submitted that it is only a projection made for the period, however no amount was received. It was submitted that based on the tally data, assessee has actually received Rs. 5,46,50,000/- a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the year under consideration. The assessee has confirmed receipt of Rs. 5,56,50,000/- during the year under consideration and claimed the expenditure to the extent of Rs. 2,48,79,002/- and the net balance amount of Rs. 2,19,70,998/- was declared as undisclosed income. However, assessee has surrendered an amount of Rs. 2,80,00,000/-. We observed that AO has noticed that assessee has declared unreconciled turnover from the data seized from RU-1 Annexure A-39 to the extent of Rs. 11,65,77,710. We observed that AO has not brought on any record to show that assessee has received more than the amount found during the search as per Annexure A-39. That being so, in our considered view, the actual income alone can be brought on record for taxation and not on the basis of notional income or anything on presumption basis. Therefore, after considering the relevant document on record, the assessee has already accepted the actual receipt of cash as actual income and declared the same during search proceedings. Therefore, we do not see any reason to disturb finding of the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 96. With regard to Ground No.2 of Revenue's a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....do not see any reason to disturb the findings of the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, ground no.2 is dismissed. 101. With regard to Ground No.3 of Revenue's appeal, during search, expense voucher found which were identified as Page No.24 of A-3 of Party RU-1 from the office of Rama Group, Bulandshahr (U.P.) and the relevant voucher was reproduced at page 24 of the assessment order. The AO proceeded to make addition on the basis of 'Baynama Kharcha' slip and the receiver and payer has duly signed on this document on 22.02.2014. The transaction of Rs. 32,52,220/- is accounted on this page and the sources of the same are remained unexplained. Accordingly, he proceeded to make the addition in the hands of the assessee. 102. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A), after considering the detailed submissions and remand report and rejoinder to the remand report, deleted the addition based on the finding that these documents belonged to Rama Dairy Products Pvt. Ltd. and assessee is an individual and liability accrued to a company cannot be fastened on an individual. 103. Aggrieved Revenue is in appeal before us. 104. At the time of hearing, ld. DR of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hearing, ld. DR of the Revenue and ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the submissions made for Ground No.7 of Revenue's appeal and Ground No.9 of assessee's appeal in AY 2013-14. 111. Since we have already decided this issue against the Revenue while dealing with Ground No.7 of Revenue's appeal for AY 2013-14, accordingly Ground No.4 of Revenue's appeal for AY 2014-15 is dismissed. 112. With regard to Ground no.5, the relevant facts are subsequent to the search and assessee was asked to furnish the details of movable and immovable properties owned and possessed by him along with explanation of the exact source of money utilized to make such investment. Based on the information submitted by the assessee, AO observed that assessee has purchased land as under :- S. No. Date of Purchase Particulars Address Principal Amount Stamp Duty Other Expenses Total 1 21.02.2014 Land purchased 0.2710 Hectare Vill. Imaliya, Bulandshahr 20,60,000 1,44,500 11,520 22,16,020 2 21.02.2014 Land purchased 6102590 Hectare Vill. Imaliya, Bulandshahr 19,70,000 1,38,000 11,860 21,19,860 3 21.02.2014 Land purchased 8.2720 Hec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. 120. With regard to assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15, assessee has raised ground no.1 which is similar to ground no.1 raised by the Revenue. However, ld. AR has not pressed this ground, hence the same is dismissed as not pressed. 121. With regard to Ground No.2 regarding addition of Rs. 46,40,000/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained cash found during the courses of search, the relevant facts are, during search certain cash was found at RU-1, Sayana Road, Bulandshahr of Rs. 6,40,000/- and an amount of Rs. 42 lakhs was seized from RU-2 at Rama Kutir, D.M. Road, Bulandsahar. The Assessing Officer observed that the abovesaid amounts were not offered for taxation. During assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to clarify the same and based on the questionnaire issued vide letter dated 22.05.2014, AO considered the reply of the assessee which was reproduced at page 26 of the assessment order as per which it was submitted that the assessee has surrendered the same during FY 2013-14. When the assessee was specifically asked to explain the above cash vide letter dated 09.12.2016 to furnish the explanation or documentary proof in support of the cash seized as mentioned abo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cash found at the residence of the assessee, we observed that the assessee has already declared Rs. 2.80 crores during the AY 2014-15, which includes the surrender for the unreconciled receipt in the case of Rama Royal Residency (Proprietary Concern) to the extent of Rs. 2,19,70,998/- and the additional cash found during the search. Therefore, the additional cash surrendered by the assessee is part of overall declaration for the year under consideration. Therefore, we are inclined to delete the abovesaid additions in the hands of the assessee and accordingly ground no.2 raised by the assessee is allowed. 127. With regard to ground no.3, the relevant facts are, during the course of search proceedings, jewellery worth Rs. 29,42,525/- was seized from the Locker No.171 in the name of the assessee and Smt. Leena Agarwal with Bank of Baroda, Moti Bagh Branch, Bulandsahar, U.P. During post-search enquiries, when the assessee was asked to explain the same, in reply assessee has submitted that the seized jewellery belongs to brother and sister-in-law of Mrs. Leena Agarwal, wife of the assessee. Since the above said parties are agriculturist and do not have locker facility with them, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....family. Therefore, he submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is unwarranted and may be deleted. 131. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the findings of the Assessing Officer. 132. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that 1074.05 grms. of jewellery were found during the search from locker no.171 which was in the name of the assessee as well as Leena Agarwal. We observed that the assessee has stated that the abovesaid jewellery belongs to brother-in-law and sister-in-law, namely, Sachin Goel and Prachi Goel. In support, they have also filed affidavits claiming the same that these jewellery belongs to them. Considering the fact that assessee has submitted at the time of recording statement during the course of search as well as subsequently that these jewellery belong to brother-inlaw and sister-in-law of the assessee. In this regard, they also filed specific affidavits. After considering the due submissions, we observed that assessee has submitted and claimed the jewellery belongs to his in-law family including mother-in-law and other family members. After due consideration of the affidavits filed by Sac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollowing grounds of appeal against the order of ld. CIT (A)-26, New Delhi dated 14.10.2022 and the order dated 26.02.2014 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act passed by the Assessing Officer :- "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of Ld. A.O. in confirming the additions made by the Ld. AO for Rs. 1,73,43,277/- and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the Assessment order passed under section 143(3) though passed after the date of search i.e. 28.02.2014 but with pre-conceived notion and pre- dated for 26.02.2014 making the entire scrutiny proceedings and the assessment order unlawful and void. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the additions made by the Ld. AO for Rs. 1,73,43,277/- without giving an adequate opportunity before passing the Ld. CIT(A) order dated 14.10.2022. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....14,42,317/- and proceeded to complete the assessment u/s 144 of the Act by making the addition of Rs. 1,79,83,660/- 139. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A)-26, New Delhi. Assessee had filed detailed submissions including additional evidences before the ld. CIT (A) with the submissions as under :- "i) Rs. 1,35,92,080/- addition is made on account of sum of credits in capital account (Without considering debit transactions) ignoring general principle of accounting, ignoring the fact that entire transaction in capital account is routed through banking channel that too from the saving account of the assessee' himself and without making adequate enquiry and without producing any contradictory material fact in support of the opinion of the Ld AO. ii) Rs. 23,08,800/- addition is made by the Ld. AO cannot be hold good as while rejecting the Sale vouchers (GR Receipts) on the ground that receipts are in the name of "Sanjeev Kumar Adi" and not in the name of "Sanjeev Kumar" AO ignores the general practice followed in the market and without making adequate enquiry and without producing any contradictory material fact in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the ld. CIT (A), we observed that he merely analysed the information available before him based on the remand report and rejoinder. However, he did not give proper opportunity to the assessee to explain those observations made by him and then passed the appellate order with the above observation. 143. Further we observed that ld. CIT (A) dismissed the ground raised by the assessee on the agricultural income declared by the assessee and observed that the copies of receipt of sales through Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti are filed which are totally illegible and the details of ownership of land along with family members were filed, further he observed that not a single evidence was filed to show that the said agricultural products were cultivated on this land. He sustained the addition without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. He could have asked the assessee to submit legible copies of receipts of sale and submit the relevant details of land holding. 144. Further he sustained the addition of net profit @ 5% in wholesale trading business of cattle feed and observed that assessee did not produce books of account, bills and vouchers of his business in support of his incom....