TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 960
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....D.R. ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member: IT(SS)A No. 29/Ahd/2024 & ITA No. 1014/Ahd/2024 for assessment year 2018-19 & 2019-20 filed by assessee, Riddhi Siddhi Estate Creator LLP & IT(SS)A 41/Ahd/2024 filed by the revenue are against the order dated 26-03-2024 passed by CIT(A)-11, Ahmedabad. ITA No. 1016/Ahd/2024 for assessment year 2019-20 filed by assessee, Safari Biotech Pvt. Ltd. is against the order dated 20-03-2024 passed by CIT(A)-11, Ahmedabad. 2. The grounds of appeals are as under:- IT(SS)A No. 29/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2018-19 "1 The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and facts in upholding the addition of Rs 25,00,000/- u/s 68 being unsecured loan taken by the Assessee alleging Assessee's failure to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rounds of appeal during the course of the appellate proceedings." ITA No. 1016/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2019-20 "1. The Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in law and facts in directing the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of Assessee regarding erroneous addition of Rs 23,01,432/- u/s 43CA instead of deleting the same based on concrete documentary evidence placed on record [Tax effect of disputed addition of Rs 23,01,432/- is Rs. 7,82,487/-] 2. The Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in law and facts in upholding the addition of Rs 1,92,206/- u/s 43CA despite the same being within the tolerance limit of 10% as prescribed in first proviso to Section 43CA. [Tax effect of disputed addition of Rs 1,92,206/- is Rs. 65,418/-] 3. The Appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng 1-163 pages. The diary was also seized and marked as annexure A-4 containing the details of holding off immovable property like land, flat, office, shop etc. by RSGBL, which is a group concerns and its director/partners. The said pages more particular page no. 42 of Annexure-A/4 contained details of loans to various parties. During the assessment proceedings when confronted to assessee about the said page, the assessee vide letter dated 15.05.2019 submitted that "the jotting on these page is outstanding payment of parties as per books." 3.2 The Assessing Officer has given the details in the assessment order related to the documents seized during the search action. After taking cognizance of the assessee's explanation, the Assessing Of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t documents were provided to Assessing Officer as well to the CIT(A) and thus confirmation of addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- u/s. 68 and Rs. 68,219/- u/s. 37 of the Act by the CIT(A) is not justified. The Ld. A.R. submitted that once the CIT(A) accepts the entire amount and grants the relief to the extent of Rs. 51,17,603/- then the same cannot restricted. 6. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and submitted that the Department is also in appeal IT(SSA)A 41/Ahd/2024 which is a low tax effect. 7. We have heard both parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. Though the Revenue has filed the appeal for assessment year 2018-19, the tax effect is low as mentioned in the CBDT Circular No. 05/2024 dated 15.03.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....smissed. 9. As regards ITA No. 1016/Ahd/2024 for assessment year 2019-20 filed by Safari Biotech Pvt. Ltd., the Ld. A.R. submitted that there was mistake in taking the valuation and after rectifying the said mistakes, addition of Rs. 24,93,638/- would get reduced by Rs. 23,01,432/- as tabulated below: Particulars Value as per Stamp Duty Authorities (As per Assessing Officer) (in INR) Correct Valuation (In INR) Difference to be reduced from addition (In INR) Shed No. 80 24,69,388 17,67,196 7,02,192 Shed No. 53 20,83,673 12,83,926 7,99,747 Shed No. 55 20,93,877 12,94,384 7,99,493 Total 23,01,432 Therefore, the CIT(A) has categorically directed the Assessing Office....