TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 441
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of both the parties and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 3. At the outset of the hearing the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the matter in ITA no. 816/JP/2025 for the assessment year 2015-16 may be considered as lead case for discussion as the issues involved in the lead case are common and the facts and circumstances of other cases are identical except the difference in the amount disputed in each year of appeal. Therefore, for the purpose of the present discussions, the case of the assessee in ITA No. 816/JP/2025 is taken as a lead case. 4. The brief facts of the case are that for all these years the assessee filed the voluntary return of income and even for some of the years scrutiny assessment in accordance with the provision of section 143(3) was passed. The related fact summary is tabulated herein below:- (APB Reference is of Relevant Year Paper Book) Assessment Year Returned Income u/s 139 APB Returned Income as per 148 APB Whether Assessment completed u/s 143(3) 2015-16 34,60,490/- 01-08 34,60,490/- 09 06.09.2017 2016-17 46,6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d considering the seized material the additions in respect of gross advances given and interest expenditure on it was made by AO in the reassessment order for different years which are tabulated below: Assessment Year Addition u/s 69A Alleged Unexplained Interest/Commission 2015-16 68,58,000/- 1,58,000/- 2016-17 1,25,14,955/- 4,92,100/- 2017-18 67,46,810/- 4,19,100/- 2018-19 37,72,725/- 6,07,615/- 2019-20 56,20,000/- 2,95,260/- 6. Aggrieved from the above orders of the ld. AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging the order of the assessment on technical ground and that of the merits. The technical ground was that the reopening was bad in law which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and on merits of the dispute ld. CIT(A) granted the part relief to the assessee by applying peak credit theory as against the addition made by AO by treating all the gross advances / loans as unexplained and thereby order to tax the income for these years as tabulated here in below ; Assessment Year Addition u/s 69A Interest/Commission 2015-16 66,58,055/- 1,58,000/- 2016-17 - 4,92,100/- 2017-1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated to have been offered in the hands of Sh. Ajit Singh by filing letter before Investigation Wing. Appellant prays that entries on the basis of which, such peak balance has been computed have been categorically disowned by assessee and moreover assessee has not filed any such letter, therefore addition made in the hands of assessee on the basis of such letter is not in accordance with law and deserves to be deleted. 2.1 That the Id. CIT(A) has further erred in making an addition on the basis of an altogether different theory without giving credence to the submissions filed. Hence the addition so made deserves to be deleted. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition to the tune of Rs. 1,58,000/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, on allegation of interest/commission payment in respect of transactions found noted in Excel sheet, which did not pertain to assessee. It is prayed that addition made on the basis of sheet, which itself was not pertaining to assessee, is not in accordance with law and deserves to be deleted. 4. That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., for which additional income is stated to have been offered in the hands of Sh. Ajit Singh by filing letter before Investigation Wing. Appellant prays that assessee categorically disowned the transactions found noted and has been partly accepted by the authorities, therefore addition made in the hands of assessee alleging to be interest/commission on the basis of such excel is not in accordance with law and deserves to be deleted. 3. any any of the That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal." 7.3 In ITA No. 818/JPR/2025, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- "1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of ld.AO in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 arbitrarily. 1.1 That, ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding the transactions found noted in the documents found at third party as pertaining to assessee and thus erred in confirming the reopening of assessment without forming independent reason of belief regarding escapement of income. Appellant prays that the reasses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng grounds of appeal:- "1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of ld.AO in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 arbitrarily. 1.1 That, ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding the transactions found noted in the documents found at third party as pertaining to assessee and thus erred in confirming the reopening of assessment without forming independent reason of belief regarding escapement of income. Appellant prays that the reassessment proceedings so initiated on borrowed satisfaction and completed without disposing off objections raised by assessee is against the settled legal position and order so passed deserves to be set aside. 1.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the observations of ld.AO regarding not allowing the assessee with opportunity of cross examination prior to drawing adverse inference on the basis of information found from third party, which is against the principle of natural justice. 1.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the observ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition and order so passed deserves to be set aside. 1.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the observations of ld.AO regarding not allowing the assessee with opportunity of cross examination prior to drawing adverse inference on the basis of information found from third party, which is against the principle of natural justice. 1.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the observations of ld.AO that excel sheet namely "UDB" as found during search in the case of Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari Group belongs to Sh. Ravindra Singh Thakkar of UDB Group, even though neither name nor PAN of assessee was anywhere mentioned in excel sheet. 1.4 That the ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the order passed by the ld. AO wherein the notice has been issued by JAO, hence the order so passed deserves to be quashed. 2. That, ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition to the tune of Rs. 2,95,260/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, on allegation of interest/commission payment in respect of commission payment transactions found noted in Excel sheet (as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions recorded in these files present in these pen drives, Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari stated that these transactions pertain to business transactions, interest and commission transactions with various parties. He also added that these sheets contain both cheque as well as cash transactions. As noted by ld.AO in assessment order, in one of the pen drive in the folder named "School Home Work" a sheet under name "UDB" was found. On being asked, Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari stated that the sheet "UDB" has transactions entered into by him with one namely Unique Dream Builders. As per ld.AO, during the search and post search proceedings Shri Radha Mohan Maheshwari provided the following details:- SL No of the list provided by RMT File name Full name person |Contact no. Business associated Name of the concern 176 UDB.xls Unique Dream Builders 9829012900 RAVINDRA SINGH UDB TOWER TONK ROAD - It was noted by ld.AO that as the phone number mentioned in above table was linked with PAN of the assessee, i.e. AHXPS7165C, and since assessee as well his father Sh. Ajit Singh are directors in Unique Dream Builders, (P) Ltd. it was concluded by ld.AO that exc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 and 5 above. While rejecting the grounds of assessee, ld.CIT(A) has referred a decision of hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of GeetabenDineshchandra Gupta vs ITO [2021] 129 taxmann.com 346 (Gujrat), which is not applicable to the facts of present case. In that case, as per information of Investigation Wing, assessee was alleged to be a mere entry provider and not engaged in any genuine business activities. Also, assessee had disclosed total income of Rs. 1,42,694/- as against huge turnover of Rs. 24,10,82,501/- and had not shown any income from commission received on providing accommodation entries and there was detailed investigation by the Income Tax Department, which substantiated the case of the department. It was thus held that formation of belief by ld.AO on the basis of material derived during inquiry/investigation was justified. Whereas in the present case, neither transactions alleged are part of regular books of accounts of assessee nor of third party and merely on the basis of excel sheet found in third party search, assessment has been reopened by ld.AO, that too without making any detailed enquiry/ recording of statements of such third parties. With suc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ACIT, Circle1, Jaipur APB 18-20 22-24 22-24 23-25 23-25 Date 17.02.2024 17.02.2024 17.02.2024 17.02.2024 17.02.2024 Section under Show Cause 142(1) Show Cause 142(1) Show Cause which notice issued Notice Notice Notice Authority issuing notice ACIT, Circle1, Jaipur ACIT, Circle1, Jaipur ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur ACIT, Circle1, Jaipur ACIT, Circle1, Jaipur APB 23-50 27-29 27-55 28-31 28-57 Date 22.02.2024 22.02.2024 22.02.2024 22.02.2024 22.02.2024 Section under which notice issued 142(1) 142(1) 142(1) 142(1) 142(1) Authority issuing notice ACIT, Circle1, Jaipur ACIT, Circle1, Jaipur ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur ACIT, Circle1, Jaipur ACIT, Circle1, Jaipur APB 51-53 30-32 56-58 32-34 58-60 Particulars 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Date 29.02.2024 29.02.2024 Section under which notice issued Show Cause Notice Show Cause Notice Authority issuing notice ACI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)(2), Mumbai and others [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay), has held that there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of JAO and FAO for issuance of reopening notice under section 148 or even for passing assessment or reassessment order and it is only FAO which could issue notice under section 148 and not JAO. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the above case has went on to hold that when an authority acts contrary to law, the said act of the Authority is required to be quashed and set aside as invalid and bad in law and the person seeking to quash such an action is not required to establish prejudice from the said Act. An act which is done by an authority contrary to the provisions of the statue, itself causes prejudice to assessee. All assessee's are entitled to be assessed as per law and by following the procedure prescribed by law. Therefore, when the Income-tax Authority proposes to take action against an assessee without following the due process of law, the said action itself results in a prejudice to assessee. Therefore, there is no question of petitioner having to prove further prejudice before arguing the invalidity of the notice. Some other cases wherein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PravinaJagdish Patel v. Income-tax Officer [2024] 164 taxmann.com 659 (Bombay) Held: Where notice under section 148 was issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), as is required by provisions of section 151A, impugned notice issued by JAO would be quashed Reliance JioInfocomm Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 165 taxmann.com 547 (Bombay) Held: As per provisions of section 151A under faceless assessment scheme notice under section 148 can be issued only by a Faceless Assessing Officer and not by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Sundaram Multi Pap Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 164 taxmann.com 608 (Bombay) Held: Where notice under section 148 and order under section 148A(d) was passed by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not under mandatory faceless mechanism, reopening proceedings initiated under section 148 were to be quashed. Vidhyadhar Shetty v. Income-tax Officer [2024] 165 taxmann.com 265 (Bombay) Held: Where notice under section 148 was issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not by a Faceless Assessing Offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, the ld. AO has to complete the assessment by assuming proper jurisdiction by issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, which has not be done in A.Y. 2015-16. Thus, the completion of assessment without issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is bad in law and also invalid in the eyes of settled position of law. In this regard reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements- Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Weedo Ventures (P.) Ltd. [2024] 167 taxmann.com 615 (SC)/[2024] 301 Taxman 624 (SC)[23-09-2024] Section 143, read with sections 120 and 124, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Issue of notice (Notice under section 143(2)) - Assessment year 2011-12 - Assessing Officer, ITO Ward -5(3), Kolkata issued a notice under section 143(2) - However, Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-9(2), Kolkata completed assessment without issuing notice under section 143(2) - Assessee raised additional ground before Tribunal challenging jurisdiction of Assessing Officer - Tribunal held that passing of assessment order under section 143(3), without issuing notice under section 143(2) was bad in law and was to be quashed - Revenue conte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ility of section 143(2) was specifically raised throughout but, prima facie, no finding based on law had been recorded matter was to be remitted to High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law - Held, yes [2025] 171 taxmann.com 572 (Raipur - Trib.) Balbir Singh v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Section 2(14), read with section 143(2), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Capital asset(Agricultural land) - Assessment year 2012-13 - Assessee filed its return of income in response to notice issued under section 148 - Assessing Officer completed reassessment proceedings undersection 143(3) read with section 147 and made addition on account of long-term capital gain arising from sale of agricultural land - Assessee contended that Assessing Officer had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and framed assessment without issuing any notice under section 143(2) -Whether pursuant to return of income filed by assessee, Assessing Officer remained under a statutory obligation to issue notice under section 143(2) for framing assessment and absence of notice under section 143(2) impregnated proceeding with a jurisdictional defect, hence, rendered it as invalid in e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... application of mind and is bad in law. It is submitted that the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings has to be judged with regard to the material available with the assessing officer and that too by framing the opinion strictly based on the documents and information in possession, that certain income has escaped assessment and not in a mechanical manner as has been done in the case in hand. The re-opening of the case based on the borrowed satisfaction on the information provided by some other official without in any manner recording his own independent satisfaction deserves to be held illegal. In this regard reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High court in case of Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO reported in 329 ITR 110 wherein it has been held as under: Reassessment - Notice - Condition precedent - Formation of belief that income escaped assessment - Assessing Officer treating share application money as bogus accommodation entries - Payments through banking channel and companies investing money genuine - No independent application of mind by Assessing Officer but acting under information from investigation wing - N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it is held by the Hon'ble Delhi High court that where reassessment was resorted to on basis of information from DIT(Investigation) that assessee had received accommodation entry and there was no independent application of mind by Assessing Officer to tangible material and reasons failed to demonstrate link between tangible material and formation of reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, reassessment was not justified. In the circumstances it is submitted that the information received from the some other officials, gathered by them in the course of search conducted in the case of some third party has been simply relied upon for reopening of assessment and no independent inquiry whatsoever was carried out before reaching to the conclusion that income has escaped assessment. Thus, it is submitted that since there was no independent application of mind by ld. AO, while recording the satisfaction of escapement of income before issue of notice u/s 148 and he simply proceeded on borrowed satisfaction reached by some other officials without verifying the same, therefore, the entire proceedings initiated u/s 148 deserves to be held bad in law. 4 & 5. Reopen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtained to the assessee and the transactions noted are unrecorded transactions of the assessee. Your honours would appreciate that at one place, department has treated "UDB" as "UDBPL" and has reopened assessments and at the same time has interpreted the same to be pertaining to assessee, which clearly shows that there was no independent application of mind by ld.AO in entire proceedings. In fact, no effort whatsoever was made to even confirm that to whom the transactions noted in such excel sheet actually pertained. Moreover, as stated above, a summon u/s 131 of the IT Act 1961 was issued by the Investigation wing of the department to unique Dream builders. In compliance to which Sh. Ajit Singh (Director of Unique Dream Builders Pvt Ltd) vide his letter dated 10.06.2022 (Common Paper Book APB 01-03) accepted the transactions found recorded in the pen drive seized from Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari in his individual capacity and accordingly offered income on such transaction and also paid taxes on it. The copy of letter dated 10.06.2022 by Sh. Ajitsingh is also referred by ld.AO in show cause notice wherein at point no. 1 of the letter it is mentioned that- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts(India) Ltd. v. ITO [2002] 125 Taxman 963. Whereas in the instant case, ld.AO has not disposed off objections raised by assessee by speaking order. It is therefore submitted that re assessment proceedings completed in a casual manner and without following the due process are not in accordance with law and order so passed deserves to be quashed. 7. Completion of Assessment without supplying any tangible material and also the full text of the statements which were relied upon for making the addition and without affording assessee with opportunity to cross examine Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari, which were heavily relied upon for reopening the assessment and for making addition: In this regard, it is submitted that, as per the new regime of completing the assessments u/s 148 post Finance Act, 2021 and Directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal Vs. Union of India, it has become mandatory that the AO should supply all material, books of accounts and evidence in his possession before the initiation of the proceedings u/s 148. However, in the present case, no such documents, information, statements relied upon were su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cating Authority. As far as the Tribunal is concerned, we find that rejection of this plea is totally untenable. The Tribunal has simply stated that cross-examination of the said dealers could not have brought out any material which would not be in possession of the appellant themselves to explain as to why their ex-factory prices remain static. It was not for the Tribunal to have guess work as to for what purposes the appellant wanted to cross-examine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them. 7. As mentioned above, the appellant had contested the truthfulness of the statements of these two witnesses and wanted to discredit their testimony for which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of cross-examination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price list as maintained at the depot to determine the price for the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that unless it was established on record by the Department, that as a matter of fact, the consideration did pass to the seller from the purchaser, the Department had no right to make any additions, especially since none of the witnesses were examined before the Assessing Officer, and the assessee did not have any opportunity to cross-examine them" [Emphasis Supplied] Hon'ble Jaipur Bench of Tribunal in the case of Sh. Pramod Jain vs. DCIT has relied upon the view taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Andaman Timbers and held that the statements of witness cannot be made sole basis of making assessment without giving an opportunity of cross examination and consequently it is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity. Hon'ble Ahmedabad bench of ITAT also in the case of Smt. Sunita Jain vs ITO quashed the assessment order by placing reliance on Apex Court judgement in the case of Andaman Timber (cited supra) as entire assessment was based upon the statements of Sh. MukeshChoksi, which were neither supplied to assessee nor was opportunity of cross examination was provided. Ld.AO and ld.CIT(A) have denied the opportunity of cross examination relying u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocuments, the authenticated copies of which were furnished to the firm and after obtaining explanation the firm was blacklisted. There is no discussion and no finding in the afore-cited case about the right of cross examination to be not provided. In the case of State of J&K and others v. BakshiGulam Mohammad &anr., commission of inquiry was set up against Shri BakshiGulam Mohammad under the Jammu & Kashmir Commission of Inquiry Act, 1962 and in this case also Hon'ble Supreme Court has not observed that right to cross examination should not be given. Coming to the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of RameshwarLal Mali Vs. CIT 256 ITR 536 so cited by the ld. AO in support of not providing opportunity of cross examination, on going through the facts of the case as seen from the perusal of above cited order, it is noticed that facts are quite different. In this cited case, survey was carried out and statement of employees / salesman were recorded and moreover estimation of sale was made not only on the basis of statement but also on the basis of documents found during the course of survey and other facts including past history. In this back ground,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....et and as alleged as loans taken/given by assessee. Ld. CIT(A), on the observations that as per excel sheet, assessee has given as well as taken money, applied peak credit theory and accordingly allowed part relief. Details of additions confirmed by ld.CIT(A), against which assessee has preferred present appeal is as under: Assessment Year Addition u/s 69A Interest/Commission 2015-16 66,58,055/- 1,58,000/- 2016-17 - 4,92,100/- 2017-18 - 4,19,100/- 2018-19 - 6,07,615/- 2019-20 - 2,95,260/- With this factual background, it is submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has further misinterpreted admission of transactions found in excel sheet by Sh. Ajit Singh as accepting transactions in the name of the group, whereas as stated above, fact is that there is no concern with name "UDB" as is the name of excel sheet and moreover, Sh. Ajit Singh has specifically mentioned transactions being carried in his individual capacity and which has not been controverted. At this juncture, it is submitted that it is settled law that mere writing any transaction in ones own record including on computer without the knowledge or supporting, signatur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... recovered from third party there was no corroborative evidence to substantiate that assessee had paid interest in cash to third party, addition made on account of interest paid could not be sustained - Held, yes [Paras 26 and 27] [In favour of assessee] [2024] 159 taxmann.com 179 (Karnataka) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sunil Kumar Sharma Section 153C, read with section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure -Assessment of any other person (Recovery of loose sheets of paper) - Assessment years2012-13 to 2018-19 - Whether it is established in law that a sheet of paper containing typed entries and in loose form, not shown to form part of books of account regularly maintained by assessee or his business entities, do not constitute material evidence - Held, yes -Whether therefore, action taken by respondent/revenue against assessee based on material contained in diaries/loose sheets, were contrary to law and thus, impugned notices under section 153C were required to be set aside, as same were void and illegal - Held, yes [Para26] [In favour of assessee] [2019] 109 taxmann.com 90 (Bangalore - Trib.)Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In this case, search was conducted at the premises of builder. The statement of key person of the group was recorded who stated that the assessee had paid cash to the group. When the statement of the key person was put to the assessee, he denied of making any payment in cash. However, the department made addition by relying on the statement of key person of the group. The Hon'ble Tribunal relying on series of judicial pronouncements held that in absence of any evidence found against the assessee, no addition can be made on the basis of documents found from the premises of third party and the statements recorded during the course of search conducted in third party premises. It may be noted that in this case the transaction of purchase of property by the assessee from the builder has not been denied by the assessee. Further, the cheque payment was also reflected in the seized notings. Inspite of this, the addition made on the basis of notings in respect of cash transaction was not confirmed. Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO [128 TTJ 36 (Ahd)(UO)] - In this case, addition was made by relying on seized material and statement of third party without bringin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same Excel Sheet, which implies that there is no clarity with department itself as to whom such transactions pertained. 6. There is no specific averment by Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari regarding as to whom such excel sheet namely "UDB.xls" pertain. Still, adverse inference has been drawn solely on the basis of his statements, that too without affording assessee with opportunity of cross examination though specifically requested by assessee. It is thus submitted that assessee has never admitted these transactions as has been carried out by him with Shri Radha Mohan Maheshwari and no evidence whatsoever has been brought on record so as to prove that transactions shown in excel sheet "UDB.xls" were entered into by assessee. Also, as stated above, Sh. Radha Mohan Maheshwari also has not specifically confirmed as to whom such transactions relate to and therefore no liability can be fastened upon assessee and it is requested before your honours that additions conformed by ld.CIT(A) on Peak Credit theory may please be deleted in the hands of assessee. Ground of Appeal No.3: In this ground of appeal, assessee has challenged the action of ld.CIT(A) in conf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....argued that the ld. AO has not provided the full text of statement of Shri Radha Mohan Maheshwari and other related person or material from where it is evident that transactions belong to assessee itself. Moreover ld. AO has also not provided opportunity to cross examine Shri Radha Mohan Maheshwari despite the specific request made by the assessee. He also submitted that the ld. CIT(A) did not take into consideration the fact that the income that he has confirmed has already been owned by the father of the assessee. The father of the assessee has also paid tax on that declared income. This fact has not been disputed by the revenue. He also stated that based on the same set of evidence addition was also made in the case of UDB. 11. On the other hand the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). He vehemently stated that the re-opening was done based on the information given by RMT in his statement u/s. 132(4) of the Act. As there was no mention of the name Shri Ajit Singh revenue has rightly taxed and reopened the case of the assessee. 12. In the rejoinder the ld.AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that the father of the assessee has already owned up the transaction bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shri Ravinder Singh Thakkar has consulted with the other directors of the assessee company and during such discussions it transpires that Shri Ajit Singh, father of Ravinder Singh Thakkar and director of the assessee company had carried out such transactions with Shri Radha Mohan Totla in his individual capacity and since he is commonly known as owner of the UDB group, probably Shri Radha Mohan Totla has mentioned the title of the ledger account of all these transactions as "UDB". ........... 1. That all the transactions found noted in the ledger account titled as "UDB" are carried out by him in his individual capacity with Shri Radha Mohan Totla and do not relate to any of his family member of the group company firm where he director partner/ proprietor. 2. That all the figures found noted in the said ledger account are with reference to the transaction carried out represents the financial transaction of money borrowed through Shri Radha Mohan Totla and whenever the amounts were taken in advance, interest was also paid for the internment period and the amount was repaid out of the undisclosed income. Since Shri Ajit Singh (Individual) is not in the posi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunch were all much after the receipt of this letter dated 10.06.2022 filed by Mr.Ajit Singh owning all the transactions alleged as belonging to the assessee and therefore, the same income cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee. Records also reveals that assessment orders consequent to the notice u/s 148 was also passed in the case of M/s Unique Dream Builders Pvt Ltd., page 04-55 of the paper book filed wherein also the additions has been made on the same excel sheet "UDB" in the hands of company and notice u/s 148 has been issued to M/s Unique Dream Builders Pvt Ltd. on 29.03.2023 for A.Y. 2016-17 (APB 5), on 30.03.2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 (APB 20),on 29.03.2023 for A.Y. 2019- 20 (APB 42).Meaning thereby that the authorities below for not sure as to in whose case the proceedings were to be initiated and thereby to tax those transactions. Surprisingly as per records no notice appears to have been issued to the person who has owned these transactions before the Investigation Wing and that too before the issue notice to the assessee and UDB. Thus, we note that undisputedly the excel sheet in the pen drive, was not in the name of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee dispute....