Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2025 (8) TMI 1271

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fact that the order of the assessing officer is erroneous on the facts and in the law. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case he ought to have not made any disallowance as per the provisions of the Act. 2. The CIT (A) has erred in passing the impugned order by not considering the fact that the learned assessing officer is not justified in making the disallowance of the farm maintenance expenditure of Rs. 22,99,649/- in spite of furnishing of the relevant ledger extract from the audited books of account and in spite of the fact that no evidence was found during the course search proving that the expenditure in question is bogus in nature. 3. The CIT (A) has erred in passing the impugned order by not considering the fact that the learned assessing officer is not justified in making the disallowance of the farm maintenance expenditure of Rs. 22,99,649/-without considering the detailed explanation / submission furnished by the appellant and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The CIT (A) has erred in passing the impugned order by not considering the fact that the learned assessing officer is not justified in making addit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s and circumstances of the case. 4. The CIT (A) and the learned assessing officer is not justified in making the addition of Rs. 45,00,000/-, u/s 69 of the Act, alleging as the cash payments made by the appellant company to M/s. Magna Homes for purchase of a Villa, in spite of furnishing of proper explanation stating that no such cash payment was made by the appellant and the same amount actually represents the concession offered to the partners; and the same amount was already offered for taxation as additional income by M/s. Magna Homes in their statement u/s 132(4) of the Act. 5. The CIT (A) has erred in passing the impugned order by not considering the fact that the learned assessing officer is not justified in making addition / disallowance basing on his own presumption, assumption, supposition and surmise; and by misinterpretation of provisions of the Act, without considering the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant. 6. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Learned AO failed to appreciate that the farm maintenance expenses were mostly in the nature of day-to-day expenses like labour charges, cleaning charges, etc. for small and pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....11/2021 about the farm maintenance expenses for which the assessee filed their reply on 10/02/2022. In the said reply, the assessee also stated that they had not paid any amount to parties on whose name blank cash vouchers were found during search and also furnished the ledger extract of the farm maintenance expenses. The assessee also submitted that no bogus expenditure has been claimed by the assessee. The AO not accepted the said reply, since the assessee had not furnished the supporting bills / invoices and disallowed the charges u/s. 37 of the Act. 6. The assessee challenged the said orders before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) had sought for a remand report from the AO and based on the said remand report and after considering the submissions made by the assessee had partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee insofar as the farm maintenance expenses are concerned. 7. Insofar as the addition made u/s. 69 based on the seized material recovered at the time of search in respect of the A/Y 2019-20, the Ld.CIT(A) had confirmed the said addition in ITA No. 256/Bang/2025. 8. The assessee has challenged all the orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) before this Tribunal. 9. At t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... had filed their return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. It was also found that the said returns were processed by the Ld.CPC u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Therefore the assessment has been completed by the CPC based on the returns filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act. In such circumstances, the assessments are unabated / completed assessments. 13. Now we will consider the search conducted on 13/02/2020 in the premises of M/s. Lotus Farms and at the residence of Mr. Damodar Reddy, Hyderabad and about the incriminating materials seized which are all connected to the business activities of the assessee. Based on the recovery of the said incriminating materials, the AO had issued a notice u/s. 153C of the Act since the search and seizure was conducted in a third party premises. But the foremost point to be decided is whether the incriminating materials seized by the authorities were used by the AO for making the assessments u/s. 153C of the Act. From the records, we found that the assessee had claimed the farm maintenance expenses as expenses while filing the original return of income. The Ld.CPC had accepted the said claim and granted the benefit to the assessee. During the search, no undisclo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng, the Ld.AR submitted that the alleged incriminating materials which was deciphered from google drive is only a loose sheet and from that nothing could be inferred that there are some investments outside the books of accounts and therefore the same could not be utilised for making addition u/s. 69 of the Act. The Ld.AR further submitted that the cash mentioned in the said incriminating material is nothing but the concession granted to the partners Mr. Damodar Reddy and Mr. Shrihari Reddy of Magna Homes while purchasing the villa and the said concession was offered as additional income by Magna Homes in their statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act and therefore prayed that no addition could be made on the assessee. 19. The Ld.DR relied on the findings given by the AO and prayed to dismiss the appeal insofar as this addition is concerned. 20. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record. 21. To appreciate the facts involved in the present appeal, we have perused the image found in the google drive at the time of search in the residence of Shri Damodar Reddy Marupuru. On going through the said documents, even though it is a shee....