TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1044
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../Mum/2024 as both the appeals pertains to same assessment year i.e A.Y 2016-17 and are against the order of Ld. CIT(A). 1. For this year, the Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On facts and circumstances of the case and law on the subject, the learned assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 31,46,560/- on account of bogus purchase. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 27,74,197/- against addition of Rs. 31,46,460/-, on estimate basis without correct appreciation of the facts of the case and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the subject, the addition be deleted. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and law on the subject, the learned assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 7,93,000/- in respect of personal nature of expenses noted in cash diary as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the ld.AO by confirming the additions of Rs. 7,93,000/- without correct appreciation of the facts of the case and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Shri Nalin Gupta, Shri Kamal Gupta ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case established by the Assessing Officer that the assessee did not submit reconciliation of cash diary and correlation with cash in hand and entries corresponding to HO and there is no evidence of bringing and sending back cash to HO. 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CITTA) erred in providing relief on the issue of unexplained money as per the Cash Diary by observing that once O' and 'N' are accepted as opening balance figures and cannot be brought to tax in cash receipt ignoring the facts anal circumstances of the cose established by the Assessing Officer that whenever working, established that "O' and 'N' are carry forward entries, relief already been given to assessee in assessment and where page wise working does not established O' and 'N' are carry forward, the same should be treated as fresh receipts and brought to tax as if working does establish 'O' and 'N' as carry forward, the same cannot be treated as carry forward. 7 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CITI(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e validity of notice issued u/s.148 of the Act by jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as per the provisions of section 151A of the Act read with CBDT notification 18 of 2022 dated March 29, 2022. The Assessee in the paper book filed for AY 2019-20 has enclosed the copy of notice issued u/s.148 of the Act dated 31.03.2023 (page 28 of the paper book) which show that the notice u/s.148 of the Act is issued by jurisdictional AO i.e. Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai. 7. This legal issue is adjudicated in the case of M/s. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. in the order passed for AY 2016-17 in ITA No.4147/Mum/2024 wherein after considering the detailed arguments advanced by both the Assessee and the Department including submission of the Department and submissions and rejoinders filed by the Assessee, this additional grounds of appeal was dismissed therein. The relevant finding given in that case is reproduced as under: "27. We have considered the rival contentions and also considered the submission filed by the Assessee and Ld. DR as also the rejoinders filed by the Assessee. The contention of the Assessee that notice u/s.148 of the Act shou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....applies wherein in para 27 of the said order, distinction is drawn between notice u/s.148 of the Act issued under Explanation 1 and Explanation 2 to section 148 of the Act. 30. In the light of the above, we hold that the notice u/s.148 of the Act issued by JAO could not be treated as invalid and the said notice is correctly issued by JAO considering the entire gamut of the case and the provisions of the Act and the faceless regime. This additional ground of the Assessee is thus dismissed." 8. In view of the above and following the view taken in the case of J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd., this additional grounds of appeal of the Assessee is hereby dismissed. 9. The second additional grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee relates to issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act by taking incorrect sanction u/s.151 of the Act which does not contain a valid Document Indexation Number (DIN), which is in violation of CBDT circular no.19 of 2019 dated 14.08.2019. The Assessee in the paper book filed for AY 2019-20 has enclosed the copy of notice issued u/s.148 of the Act dated 31.03.2023 (page 28 of the paper book) and copy of approval accorded u/s.151 of the Act dated 31.03.2023 (pages....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unication is to be made to the Assessee, the same required proper audit trail and therefore necessity for generating DIN. The approval u/s.151 of the Act is not directly communicated to the Assessee but the same is given to the AO for issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act and thus, it is internal communication and is given to the Assessee where the Assessee demand the same. This is not the case where notice u/s.148 of the Act or any assessment or other order is passed in absence of valid DIN. Also, as per provisions of sec.282A(1) of the Act, the paper form notice or other document gets validated and authenticated once the same is duly signed by that authority. It is undisputed fact that the approval sanctioned u/s.151 of the Act is duly signed and is thus valid document. The AO has issued notice u/s.148 of the Act in pursuance thereto and this notice clearly bears valid DIN. We are also of the view that by not obtaining and mentioning DIN on the approval sanctioned u/s.151 of the Act can be said to be irregularity but that does not make the same illegal. In view of the same, this legal grounds of the Assessee is dismissed." 11. In view of the above and following our view taken in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing payment made, etc. and no discrepancy has been pointed out in the same by the AO. It is further observed that the AO in its assessment order in para 3, 2.5 and 2.6 at pages 4 to 6 has stated that this party was also covered under search action u/s.132 of the Act, however no incriminating material or evidence is stated to be found and / or relied in the assessment order, except for statement recorded of Shri Paras Vora, husband of proprietor of Kavita Enterprises KavitaVora, however the AO has not furnished the copy of statement and also not granted opportunity of cross-examine Shri Paras Vora, inspite of specific request made before him by the assessee. Further, in para 3 at page 5 of the assessment order, the AO has relied upon statement of Shri Paras Vora and that purchases made by Kavita Enterprises from certain parties stated therein from whom the Assessee has made direct purchases, however, AO failed to appreciate that purchases made from those parties referred therein were substantiated before the AO, which is accepted by AO in para 2.6 (d) at pages 7 & 8 of the order and reproduced as under: "(d) The submission of assessee has been considered and it is observed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the identity of the party Kavita Enterprises is not in dispute and although search action is carried out at Assessee premises as well as premises of Kavita Enterprises, no evidence or material is brought on record conclusively proving that the purchase made from this party is bogus. The AO has relied upon statement of Shri Paras Vora and observed that purchases made from various parties directly by Assessee were also made by Kavita Enterprises from those parties and since, bogus purchases are made by Kavita Enterprises the sale of same to the Assessee is also bogus. However copy of the statement of Shri Paras Vora is not furnished to the Assessee nor opportunity to cross-examine him given and therefore merely placing reliance on statements to hold that Assessee made bogus purchase from Kavita Enterprises cannot be accepted and no reliance can be placed on the statement of Shri Paras Vora once crossexamination is not given as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE - [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) as well as other decisions in the case of CIT v. Odeon Builders P. Ltd. 418 ITR 315 and by Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of N.K. Protein, supra, and KanakImpex, supra, are already held to be not applicable to the facts of the Assessee case as discussed hereinabove. Hence, in absence of any incriminating material or evidence found in respect of this party proving any bogus purchases made, more particularly when search action is carried out at the business premises of Assessee as well as Kavita Enterprises as also AO himself accepting purchase from this party in all other year and part purchase in this year as genuine, in our view, no disallowance is called for and thus, we held that the AO was not justified in making 100% disallowance of purchase made from Kavita Enterprises and Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in restricting the same to 12.50% and thus, direct to delete the entire disallowance made in respect of this party." In respect of other 2 parties at sr. no. 2 & 3 of above table: "173 (D) - iii. We have considered the rival submission and the orders passed by AO and CIT(A) in respect of these parties and since the facts are identical and similar to that of AY 2018-19 in respect of purchases made from M/s. Divya Enterprises and this party also exist in the list of all the oth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Assessee own case passed in reference to issue of bogus purchase addition made pursuance to earlier search action in the case of the Assessee carried out on 30.08.2016 wherein the ITAT gave complete relief to the Assessee. However, we have given due consideration to the ITAT order in the case of the Assessee and although we agree with the finding given in the decision of the ITAT order in Assessee own case to the effect that claim of the Assessee cannot be rejected primarily on the ground that SOPs have not been followed and that the Assessee being fairly big company having various sites and therefore the contentions of the AO that it has not followed SOPs in the matter of purchase of materials without bringing any concrete/substantive evidences to corroborate bogus purchases on record and thus, the same cannot be sustained. However, the facts in the present case and the addition is not made solely on the basis of not following SOPs. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly brought out the distinction in the order passed in para 36.7 at page 96 of the order and we agree with the same. The facts in that year before the ITAT were entirely different than in the present year. Hence, we a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he course of search action at the residence of Shri Nalin Gupta, a black colour Luxor diary was found and seized as Annexure A-1 of Annexure A of the Panchnama dated 15.10.2022. The explanation in respect of the noting in the diary was sought in the statements recorded of Shri Nalin Gupta and thereafter Shri Jagdishkumar Gupta to whom the diary belonged. The AO found certain noting in the diary in the payment side in the name of family members of the Assessee herein i.e. Smt. Shalini Gupta, Shri Nalin Gupta and Smt. Kusum Gupta and in their assessment proceedings, they were asked to explain the noting in the said diary. In their submissions made, it was contended without prejudice that there are sufficient drawings to cover the expenses noted in the diary and if any deficit arises, the same be considered in the hands of Shri Jagdishkumar Gupta, i.e. the Assessee herein. 25. The AO in the course of assessment proceedings of the Assessee, show caused as to why the noting of expenses of all the family members relating to the impugned year in the diary aggregate to Rs.13.93 lakhs be not added in the hands of the Assessee. The AO accepted the without prejudice contention of the Asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... nos.3 to 7 relates to challenging the addition made by the AO of Rs. 24.85 cr. on Protective Basis as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act on the basis of black colour Luxor diary found and seized from the residence of Shri Nalin Gupta. The AO made substantive addition in the order passed in the case of M/s. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. wherein the AO has deliberated the issue in detail. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition in the hands of the Assessee by referring to detailed order passed in the case of M/s. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. wherein the issue is dealt on merits. Wherein, the Ld. CIT(A) held that having considered the substantive addition in the case of M/s. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. on merits, there is no reason to sustain the protective addition made in the hands of the Assessee. 29. Both the Assessee and the Ld. DR confirmed that the issue raised herein is the identical and same as already taken in the case of M/s. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. wherein substantive addition is made. The Assessee contended that having dealt the issue on merits in the case of M/s. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. and Assessee having not contended that noting in the diary does not relate to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'O' and 'N'. The explanation given that the same is balance amount noted and carried forward in the pages of the diary is not disputed by the lower authorities and in fact, the AO has also given part relief in respect of the same. However, we do not agree with the view of the AO for rejecting part of the noting in respect of these abbreviations where the balances does not match and the reason for the same is also given by the Assessee that the mismatch may have occurred due to totalling error or missing page/s in the diary, etc. since the diary is not continuous like regular cash book and in fact on many pages of the diary, the balance are either not carried forward or not noted. It was also brought to our notice that the mismatch in the balance carried forward is rectified in few occasions in subsequent part of the diary and instances of the same were given in the submission filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and reproduced by CIT(A) at page 112 of the order and the relevant part of the same is reproduced herein below for the sake of brevity: "42. The Appellant further submits that in few cases, the mismatch in figures of balance carried over gets duly corrected in the subsequen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same. 168. The next contention is in respect of noting in the diary against the abbreviations 'HO', 'KG', 'NG', 3 No., etc. and during the course of search action, in the statement of Shri Nalin Gupta, these abbreviations are explained to be depicting Head Office for HO, Kamal Gupta for KG, Nalin Gupta for NG. It is further explained during the course of assessment proceedings, that the '3 No.' abbreviation is used to refer the residence of the Chairman at Road no.3, JVPD, Vile Parle West. We have considered the explanation of the Assessee that cash and gold of Assessee Company was kept at residence of Chairman / Directors for safe keeping and therefore there was movement of cash from office to residence and vice versa and the diary was maintained mainly to keep track of the same and this was done due to theft at the business premises of the Assessee for which FIR was also filed. The fact of theft at business premises is not disputed by the AO and it cannot be disputed since FIR filed is placed on record. We have also noted that during the course of search action, part of the gold was kept in the lockers pertaining to the Chairman / Directors and their close relative s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....given for this receipt. We are not in agreement with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Once it is found and undisputed fact that no narration whatsoever is mentioned against the noting and only figures are mentioned as 15 at both the places, it cannot be presumed that the same is unaccounted cash receipt of the Assessee. Addition cannot be made merely on assumption and presumption. We find that when all the noting in the diary for this year are either balances or movement of cash from office to residence and vice versa, there is no reason to deviate from this view already taken by us. As per the legal maxim 'paripassu', the noting without any narration can be placed with equal footing with the noting having abbreviations 'HO', etc. and thus, this explanation of the Assessee is found acceptable. The Assessee also argued that such noting can be termed as rough noting / dumb noting since there is no narration mentioned and the diary was written by various personnel. This explanation of the Assessee also cannot be rejected since where there is no narration, either the same is rough noting or it can be placed with equal footing as per the other noting. Hence, on both these re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch as HO scrap, HO Tyre scrap, scrap Ghodbunder, etc. and all these noting figures total to Rs. 37 lakhs. The Assessee has explained that the same is amount received at head office in lumpsum from the balance remaining out of sale of scrap at various sites and are thus part of the overall gross receipt of sale of scrap in cash. The Ld. CIT(A) has remarked that although the same is from sale of scrap, however do not form part of scrap receipts added by AO separately. We are not in agreement to the finding given by Ld. CIT(A). This is for the reason that similar sale of scrap noting is found in the diary at various places falling in the year relevant to AY 2022-23 and for that year, the total of sale of scrap noting in the diary worked out to Rs. 9.36 cr. and the AO has himself given full relief of the same to avoid double addition on the ground that the same is forming part of the overall addition made on account of sale of scrap added separately. Since the AO has accepted that the noting in the diary relating to scrap sale receipt is part of the overall addition made separately in respect of sale of scrap in cash, we do not find any justification to sustain this addition. We also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dy dealt with on merits in the case of M/s. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. Therefore, in view of the findings given in the case of M/s. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd., there is no merit whatsoever for making the same addition on protective basis in the case of the Assessee. The protective addition made is directed to be deleted. These grounds of appeal of the department are dismissed. 32. In the result, for AY 2019-20, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed. Now we take up revenue Appeal in ITA No.4583/Mum/2024, A.Y 2020-21 33. In this year, the Department has filed appeal. The grounds of appeal in the department appeal reproduced as under: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in restricting/deleting the addition/disallowance of Rs. 84,94,00,000/-in respect of unexplained money as per the Cash Diary, made by the AO u/s 691 of the Act to Rs. 7,00,000/- ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case established by the Assessing Officer. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in providing relief on the issue of unexplained ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in dairy. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing." 34. Though the Assessee has not filed any appeal, However has filed additional grounds of appeal vide letter dated 26.03.2025. The additional grounds of the Assessee read as under: "1. The Ld. AO erred in issuing a Notice under section 148 of the Act in violation of section 151A of the Act read with CBDT Notification 18 of 2022 dated March 29, 2022 as the same has to be issued by Faceless Assessing Officer. 2. The Ld. AO erred in issuing a Notice u/s.148 of the Act without having a valid DIN as per CBDT Circular 19 of 2019 dated August 14, 2019 in the sanction obtained under section 151 of the Act. The Appellant craves to leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all the above grounds of appeal." 35. In respect of the additional grounds of appeal of the Assessee, the Ld. Department Representative (Ld. DR in short) did not objected to the admissibility of the same. The additional grounds of appeal being legal grounds for which no new facts were required and hence, the same were admitted for adjudication following the dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting/deleting the addition/disallowance of Rs. 51,75,24,000/- in respect of unexplained money as per the Cash Diary, made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act to Rs. 72,00,000/- ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case established by the Assessing Officer. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in providing relief on the issue of unexplained money as per the Cash Diary, by observing that AO has not proved otherwise and the amounts written against such code words cannot be brought to tax ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case established by the Assessing Officer that the diary maintained by the assessee is for unaccounted cash generation and out of books expenses and the AO has given the telescoping benefits to the assessee to the extent of generation of scrap sale and bogus purchase entries mentioned in the diary. Therefore, it was established the entries mentioned in the diary were not brought to tax. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in providing relief on the issue of unexplained money as per the Cash Diary, by observing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aceless Assessing Officer. 2. The Ld. AO erred in issuing a Notice u/s.148 of the Act without having a valid DIN as per CBDT Circular 19 of 2019 dated August 14, 2019 in the sanction obtained under section 151 of the Act. The Appellant craves to leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all the above grounds of appeal." 42. In respect of the additional grounds of appeal of the Assessee, the Ld. Department Representative (Ld. DR in short) did not objected to the admissibility of the same. The additional grounds of appeal being legal grounds for which no new facts were required and hence, the same were admitted for adjudication following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) wherein it is held that where question of law is concerned, additional grounds on legal issued can be raised at any stage of hearing. 43. Both the above additional grounds of appeal raised in this year are identical and same as that raised in AY 2019-20. Even the facts for this year in respect of the additional grounds of appeal are same as that of AY 2019-20. Therefore in view of our findings given in the case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....going through the same the AO has inferred that the amount stated against the word 'cash' on the right side of both the whatsapp chat [45,20,000 (+) 25,00,000 = 70,20,000] is towards purchase of gold from Suresh Poddar and this being unexplained and not recorded in the books of account of any of the family members, the same is added in the hands of the Assessee as per without prejudice submission filed in family members cases before AO in respect of any deficiency being considered in the hands of the Assessee. 50. However, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made thereby considering the entire facts of the case and more particularly that M/s. Poddar Gems i.e. Prop. Suresh Poddar only deals in diamonds and not Gold and this facts is confirmed by Shri Suresh Poddar in reply filed in response to notice issued u/s.133(6) of the Act. 51. Now, before us, the Assessee contended that the chart referred to in the whatsapp chat is sent by Suresh Poddar and thus prepared by Suresh Poddar and not the Assessee herein or any of his family members. It was contended that Assessee or his family members have purchased diamonds from Suresh Poddar i.e. Poddar Gems and also from Krishna Enterpris....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n first whatsapp chat referred by AO), gold and cash is mentioned with amount i.e. cash mentioned with amount of 45,20,000/- and in the second whatsapp chat referred by AO, on right side, on cash is mentioned with amount of 25,00,000/-. In both these whatsapp chat charts, the left side aggregate amount is reduced from the total amount mentioned on right side of the chart and thereafter balance pending amount is mentioned. The AO has inferred that the cash amount mentioned in the right side of both these charts are gold purchased in cash from Shri Suresh Poddar and the AO thus made addition of Rs. 70,20,000/- [45,20,000 (+) 25,00,000] u/s.69A of the Act as unexplained investment in gold holding that the gold purchased in cash is not reflected in the books of account of the respective family members. 54. We are not in agreement with the inference drawn by the AO for making addition of Rs. 70,20,000/- as unexplained investment in gold. Nowhere in the whatsapp chat, is there any mention of gold purchased in cash from Suresh Poddar. In fact, it is also undisputed fact that Suresh Poddar including his prop. Concern Poddar Gems only deals in diamonds and not in gold. This is also confi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....57. For this year, the Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. On facts and circumstances of the case and law on the subject, the learned assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- considering unsecured loan as unexplained Income u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the ld. AO by confirming the additions of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- without correct appreciation of the facts of the case and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the subject, the addition be deleted. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and law on the subject, the learned assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 10,15,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the ld. AO by confirming the additions of Rs. 10,15,000/- without correct appreciation of the facts of the case and law on the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the subject, the addition be deleted. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and law on the subject, the learned a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xplained money as per the Cash Diary by observing that once O' and 'N' are accepted as opening balance figures and cannot be brought to tax in cash receipt ignoring the facts anal circumstances of the case established by the Assessing Officer that whenever working, established that "O' and 'N' are carry forward entries, relief already been given to assessee in assessment and where page wise working does not established O' and 'N' are carry forward, the same should be treated as fresh receipts and brought to tax as if working does establish 'O' and 'N' as carry forward, the same cannot be treated as carry forward. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CITI(A) erred in providing relief on the issue of unexplained money as per the Cash Diary by ignoring the facts and circumstances of the case established by the Assessing Officer that various corroborate evidences found w.r.t bogus purchase, scrap sale in coat and out of books murum expenses and mentioned in dairy. 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CITI(A) erred in deleting addition made by AO for Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the matter be restored back to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication of the issue by duly considering the additional evidence now filed. The Assessee contended that the amount received from Sumitradevi Chaudhary was genuine amount and not accommodation entry and was towards the advance amount received for sale of land for which MOU was duly entered and the same was also found during the course of search action. Sumitradevi Chaudhary also filed Affidavit before the AO stating therein that the amount was paid as advance for purchase of land from Assessee and various other family members, however, the same is not construed properly and the lower authorities have merely made the addition based upon the seized loose paper. The additional evidence now filed including the letters exchanged and termination of MOU entered earlier for sale of land and part amount repaid by Assessee duly highlighted by way of bank statement and since all these have happened after the passing of the order by Ld. CIT(A), these evidences could not be filed either before the AO or the CIT(A). Hence, it was prayed that the additional evidences have bearing on the issue and the same may be admitted and ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by lower authorities and thus, these evidences could not be filed earlier being subsequent events. However, the copy of MOU dated 07.12.2021 and explanation of the Assessee that the amount was received as advance for sale of land was furnished before the lower authorities duly supported by Affidavit of Sumitradevi Chaudhary and thus, it cannot be said that these additional evidences are after thought or does not have any bearing on the issue at hand. 65. After having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the additional evidences filed have bearing on the issue at hand. These additional evidences could not be filed before lower authorities for the obvious reason that the letters communicated and the repayment of advance happened only after the orders were passed by the lower authorities. It is not in dispute that MOU dated 07.12.2021 was filed before the lower authorities including Affidavit of Sumitradevi Chaudhary and explanation furnished. It is seen that the AO has not examined Sumitradevi Chaudhary inspite of Affidavit filed by her and the lower authorities have simply relied upon the seized document for making the add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k Bungalow without including cash element of Rs. 55.50 lakhs noted in the diary. In the case of M/s. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd., it was held that this amount of Rs. 55.50 lakhs be taxed in the hands of present Assessee as part of sale consideration of Nashik Bungalow and the long term capital gains computed accordingly. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed addition of Rs. 55.50 lakhs in the hands of the Assessee on this very ground. 72. In view of the above, the addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) of Rs. 55.50 lakhs in the hands of the Assessee is hereby sustained with the direction to the AO to re-compute the long term capital gains on sale of Nashik Bungalow by including the amount of Rs. 55.50 lakhs as part of sale consideration and thereby give consequential effect. The AO is directed to compute tax on this amount as per provisions of long term capital gains and provisions of sec.69A of the Act is not applicable since this being on-money received and thus, part of sale consideration of Nashik Bungalow. Consequently this ground of appeal of the Assessee stands partly allowed. 73. Now we take up the department grounds of appeal Ground nos. 1 to 5 all the grounds relates to addition ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the noting in the diary as well as the whatsapp chat corroborated with each other and thus, proved that the Assessee has made unexplained investment in gold and thus, the AO has rightly made addition of Rs. 13.16 cr. u/s.69A of the Act as unexplained investment in gold. 78. On the contrary the Assessee contended that detailed submission and explanation was furnished to the CIT(A), which is reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) in the order passed. In respect of gold bullion whatsapp chat photos sent by Shri Suresh Poddar, Assessee contended that Shri Suresh Poddar does not deal in gold but deals only in diamonds and this fact was established during assessment proceedings wherein the AO issued notice u/s.133(6) of the Act to Shri Suresh Poddar and he responded with supporting evidences that he only deals in diamonds. With respect to the whatsapp chat, Assessee argued that Shri Suresh Poddar being known to the Assessee and family members and they have been purchasing diamonds from him and is trustworthy, whenever the Assessee or his family members or the Company M/s. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. desire to purchase gold bullion, they contact Shri Suresh Poddar who has his office at opera ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the diary i.e. on page 11 of diary with amount of Rs.1.64 cr. and this noting is ignored by AO. Lastly, the Assessee further contended that nowhere in the diary noting it is stated gold bar or gold purchase and only name of Shri Suresh Poddar is noted and the noting in the diary are much prior to gold bar photos sent by Shri Suresh Poddar via whatsapp chat, which defies logic of the AO. It was thus pleaded that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the protective addition of Rs. 13.16 cr. made by the AO. 79. We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material on record and also the whatsapp chat found in the mobile of the Assessee. We have already held in the case of Assessee in the appeal of department for AY 2021-22 that Shri Suresh Poddar does not deal in gold bullion and only deals in diamonds. Thus, the allegation of the AO that Shri Suresh Poddar has sold gold bars to the Assessee in cash is contrary to the facts of the case. In fact, Shri Suresh Poddar himself confirmed in response to notice issued u/s.133(6) of the Act that he does not deal in gold bullion and deals only in diamonds.In respect of the gold bar photos sent by Shri Suresh Poddar via what....