TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 584
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2016-17. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting addition u/s 69 of the IT Act of Rs. Rs. 5,32,83,600/-made by the A.O. for AY 2016-17 on account of loan balance treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 the IT Act." 2. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in not appreciating the fact that Ahuja group, in application made before the Settlement Commission, included the amount of Rs. 5,32,83,600/- as outstanding loan in the name of Shri Bhagwandas Adani. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pe of the Act, hence Ld. CIT(A) has rightly appreciated facts to delete the addition in this case. Hence, ground no. 2 of deptt is liable to be rejected. 3. As there was no such transaction as also highlighted by the legal heir in affidavit dated 28/02/2023 which was filed before CIT(A), therefore question of further explaining by assessee does not arise. Hon'ble ITAT may please note that the contents of the affidavit have not been disapproved by the department, therefore, ground no. 3 of deptt is liable to be rejected. 4. The assessee prays that the order of the CIT(A) on three grounds taken by the department can not be reversed, therefore the same may be upheld. 5. The assessee craves leave to amend or alter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and an amount of Rs. 5,84,38,000/-, clearly stating the narration as 'Bhagwandas Adani cash loan' was also included in the total income disclosed aby the group. Accordingly, Ld. AO prepared a draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) proposing to add this amount to the assessee's income against which he was required to file his objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) within 30 days of receipt of the order. As no objection was filed, the assessment was finalised u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act at an income of Rs. 5,43,93,760/-. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) observed that the seized papers mentioned repayment of loan by Ahuja Group to Bhagwandas Adani of Rs. 12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ehemently argued that even if any cash loan had been given by the assessee to the Ahuja Group, it should have been considered in the year mentioned in the seized documents. There was no justification for Ld. AO to add the entire amount of Rs. 5,32,83,600/- in the hands of the assessee during the year under consideration without ascertaining the year(s) in which the loans had been given. 7. Ld. DR, on the other hand, has heavily relied on the assessment order and has pointed out that the documentary evidence seized as well as the statements recorded during the search clearly point to undisclosed cash transactions between the assessee and Ahuja Group. He, therefore, argued that the order of Ld. AO deserves to be upheld. 8. We have heard....