TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (1) TMI 435
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not affording proper opportunity to the appellant. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating ground No. l that the assessment order dated 24. 12. 2009 purportedly passed u/s 144 LW.S. 147, various observations made therein and the assessment proceedings are bad in law and therefore require to be quashed. 3. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,94,16,000/u/s 68 on substantive basis subject to observations in appellate orders in the case of Lunkad Media & Entertainment Ltd. for A Y 2002-03 and A Y 2004-05, treating the same as unexplained. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the said addition is wrong, uncalled for and requires to be deleted. 4. That the Learned ClT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 7,95,166/- on account of alleged commission income subject to observations in appellate orders in the case of Lunkad Media & Entertainment Ltd. for A Y 2002-03 and A Y 2004-05. The said addition purely made on surmises and conjectures and also on the other facts and in the circumstances of the case, is wrong and illegal and the same requires to be deleted. 5. That the Learned CIT (A) er....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and also on the other facts and in the circumstances of the case, is wrong and illegal and the same requires to be deleted. 5. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 13,77,750/- on account of alleged commission income @ 5 percent for providing share application money subject to observations in appellate orders in the case of Lunkad Media & Entertainment Ltd. for A Y 2002-03 and A Y 2004-05. The said addition purely made on surmises and conjectures and also on the other facts and in the circumstances of the case, is wrong and illegal and the same requires to be deleted. 6. That the Learned CIT (A) erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 20,63,994/made by the Assessing Officer being 100 percent of expenses debited to P&L account to 20% subject to observations in appellate orders in the case of Lunkad Media & Entertainment Ltd. for A Y 2002-03 and A Y 2004-05 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 4,12,799/sustained is also wrong and illegal and the same requires to be deleted. 7. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in issuing directions to modify interest charged u/s 234A, 234B and 2340. That on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ited to P&L account subject to observations in appellate orders in the case of Lunkad Media & Entertainment Ltd. for A Y 2002-03 and A Y 2004-05 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 18,97,202/- sustained is also wrong and illegal and the same requires to be deleted. 6. 2 That the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the A. O. has disallowed only Rs. 18,97,202/- out of total expenses of Rs. 30,17,509/- debted to P&L account. That the A. O. in the aso while computing the taxable income has not allowed deduction for any expense. The claim of other expenses debited to P&L account being proper and legal, requires to be now allowed. 7. That the learned CIT(A) erred in issuing directions to modify interest charged u/s 234A and 234B. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant is not liable for this interest, the same may very kindly be deleted. " ITA No. 127/Ind/2011 (Assessee) 1. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in passing this impugned order in gross violation of the principles of natural justice by not affording proper opportunity to the appellant. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) erred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as erred in : 1. Deleting 3/4th amount of addition of Rs. 4,23,90,074/- u/s 68 made by the A. O. on account of loose paper entries, and 2. Deleting 3/4th amount of addition of Rs. 5,00,87,200/- u/s 68/69 made by the A. O. on account of unexplained cash deposits in bank account. " ITA No. 103/Ind/2011 "On the facts and in law and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in : 1. Deleting the addition of Rs. 19,68,184 made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed commission income and 2. Deleting the addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- on account of bad debts. ITA Nos. 119/Ind/2011 1. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in passing this impugned order in gross violation of the principles of natural justice by not affording proper opportunity to the appellant. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating ground No. 1 that the assessment order dated 31. 12. 2007 purportedly passed u/s 143(3) r. w. s. 144, various observations made therein and the assessment proceedings are bad in law and therefore require to be quashed. 3. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e orders in the case of Lunkad Media & Entertainment Ltd. for A Y 2002-03 and A Y 2004-05. The said addition purely made on surmises and conjectures and also on the other facts and in the circumstances of the case, is wrong and illegal and the same requires to be deleted. 5. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 27,99,275/- on account of alleged commission income @ 5 percent for providing share application money subject to observations in appellate orders in the case of Lunkad Media & Entertainment Ltd. for A Y 2002-03 and A Y 2004-05. The said addition purely made on surmises and conjectures and also on the other facts and in the circumstances of the case, is wrong and illegal and the same requires to be deleted. 6. 1 That the Learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 7,00,000/made by the Assessing Officer being bad debts debited to P&L account subject to observations in appellate orders in the case of Lunkad Media & Entertainment Ltd. for A Y 2002-03 and A Y 2004-05 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- sustained is also wrong and illegal and the same requires to be delete....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A Y 2004-05. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 35,162/- sustained is also wrong and illegal and the same requires to be deleted. 6. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in not deleting the interest u/s 2340 of Rs. 3,156/-. That on the fact and in law, the said interest was not applicable for this assessment year hence requires to be now deleted. 7. That the learned CIT(A) erred in issuing directions to modify interest charged u/s 234A and 234B. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant is not liable for this interest, the same may kindly be deleted. 8. That the learned CIT(A) erred in not issuing necessary directions for non-withdrawal of interest u/s 244A of Rs. 1,001/-. ITA No. 122/Ind/2011 1. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in passing this impugned order in gross violation of the principles of natural justice by not affording proper opportunity to the appellant. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating ground No. 1 that the assessment order dated 30. 12. 2007 purportedly passed u/s 143(3) r. w. s. 144, various observations made therein and the assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. 12. 2007 purportedly passed u/s 144 r. w. s. 147, various observations made therein and the assessment proceedings are bad in law and therefore require to be quashed. 3. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,15,01,698/u/s 68 on substantive basis subject to observations in appellate orders in the case of Lunkad Media & Entertainment Ltd. for A Y 2002-03 and A Y 2004-05, treating the same as unexplained. That the AO has made the addition on protective basis. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the said addition is wrong, uncalled for and can neither be made on protective basis nor on substantive basis, hence, requires to be deleted. 4. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 11,82,206/- on account of alleged commission income @ 5 percent for providing loan entries subject to observations in appellate orders in the case of Lunkad Media & Entertainment Ltd. for A Y 2002-03 and A Y 2004-05. The said addition purely made on surmises and conjectures and also on the other facts and in the circumstances of the case, is wrong and illegal and the same requires to be deleted. 5. That the Learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. for A Y 2002-03 and A Y 2004-05. The said addition purely made on surmises and conjectures and also on the other facts and in the circumstances of the case, is wrong and illegal and the same requires to be deleted. 5. That the Learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,72,789/made by the Assessing Officer being bad debts debited to P&L account subject to observations in appellate orders in the case of Lunkad Media & Entertainment Ltd. for A Y 2002-03 and A Y 2004-05 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition ofRs. 1,72,789/- sustained is wrong and illegal and the same requires to be deleted. 6. That the Learned CIT (A) erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 14,90,244/made by the Assessing Officer being 50 percent of expenses debited to P&L account to 20% subject to observations in appellate orders in the case of Lunkad Media & Entertainment Ltd. for A Y 2002-03 and A Y 2004-05. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 5,96,097/- sustained is also wrong and illegal and the same requires to be deleted. 7. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in not deleting the interest u/s 234D of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in issuing directions to modify interest charged u/s 234A and 234B. That on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant is not liable for this interest, the same may very kindly be deleted. 8. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in not issuing necessary directions for nonwithdrawal of interest u/s 244A of Rs. 11,788/-. ITA No. 131/Ind/2011 1. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in passing this impugned order in gross violation of the principles of natural justice by not affording proper opportunity to the appellant. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating ground No. I that the assessment order dated 07. 12. 2007 purportedly passed u/s 143(3) LW. S. 144, various observations made therein and the assessment proceedings are bad in law and therefore require to be quashed. 3. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 3,88,63,000/u/s 68 on substantive basis subject to observations in appellate orders in the case of Lunkad Media & Entertainment Ltd. for A Y 2002-03 and A Y 2004-05, treating the same as unexplained. That the AO has made the addition on protective basis. That....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2011 1. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in passing this impugned order in gross violation of the principles of natural justice by not affording proper opportunity to the appellant. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating ground No. 1 that the assessment order dated 30. 12. 2009 purportedly passed u/s 143(3) LW. S. 144, various observations made therein and the assessment proceedings are bad in law and therefore require to be quashed. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. l,05,97,518/- on substantive basis being 1/4th of total addition made by the AO of Rs. 4,23,90,074/u/s 68 on account of alleged loose paper entries treating the same as income from unexplained sources. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the said addition is wrong and uncalled for, requires to be deleted in total. 4. That the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs l,25,21,800/- on substantive basis being 1/4th of total addition made by the AO of Rs. 5,00,87,200/u/s 68/69 on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits in bank. The said addition purely made on surmises and conjectures and also on the other fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of undisclosed commission income 2. Deleting the addition of Rs. 52,40,805 /- on account of commission earned on share application money, and 3. Deleting the addition of Rs. 55,96,927/- made by the A. O. on account of disallowance of expenses which are not incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. ITA No. 111/Ind/2011 "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in - 1. Deleting 3/4th amount of addition of Rs. 4,23,90,074 u/s 68 /- made by the A. O. on account of loose paper entries and 2. Deleting 3/4th amount of addition of Rs. 5,00,87,200/- u/s 68 made by the A. O. on account of unexplained cash deposit in bank account " ITA No. 66/Ind/2011 "On the facts and in law and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in : 1. deleting the addition of Rs. 16,82,661/- made by the A. O. on account of undisclosed commission income and 2. deleting the addition of Rs. 12,00,803/- made by the A. O. on account of disallowance of expenses which are non incurred wholly and exclusively for business purpose. " ITA No. 67/Ind/2011 "On....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 92,37,000/- u/s 68 on substantive basis subject to observations in first appellate orders of A Y 2002-03 and A Y 2004-05 treating the same as unexplained. That the AO has made the addition on protective basis. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the said addition being wrong, uncalled for and can neither be made on protective basis nor substantive basis and hence, requires to be deleted. 4. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 19,91,298/- on account of alleged commission income @ 5 percent for providing loan entries subject to observations in first appellate orders of A Y 2002-03 and A Y 2004-05. The said addition purely made on surmises and conjectures and also on the other facts and in the circumstances of the case, is wrong and illegal and the same requires to be deleted. 5. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 2,46,250/- on account of alleged commission income @ 5 percent for providing share application money subject to observations in first appellate orders of A Y 200203 and A Y 2004-05. The said addition purely made on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the case, is wrong and illegal and the same requires to be deleted. 5. That the Learned CIT (A) erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 12,20,466/made by the Assessing Officer @ 50% of expenses debited to P&L account to 20% subject to observations in first appellate orders of A Y 2002-03 and A Y 2004-05. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 4,88,186/- sustained is also wrong and illegal and the same requires to be deleted. 6. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in not deleting the interest u/s 2340 of Rs. 9,655/-. That on the fact and in law, the said interest was not applicable for this assessment year hence requires to be now deleted. 7. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in issuing directions to modify interest charged u/s 234A and 234B. That on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant is not liable for these interests, the same may very kindly be deleted. 8. That the learned CIT(A) erred in not issuing necessary directions for non withdrawal of interest u/s 244A of Rs. 22,594/-. " ITA No. 135/Ind/2011 I. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in passing this impugned order in gross v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the course of survey. iii) That the appellant had attempted to destroy incriminating documents by tearing them during the course of survey. That the above observations and other similar allegations on the appellant are purely hear-say, undesired and uncalled for and adversely affecting the appellant at all stages. It is prayed that these observations may be expunged from the order. 10. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in discussing and giving directions on the following issues in this impugned order: (i) Additions based on entries in loose papers, documents etc. impounded during survey (Para 4. 4 on page 18) (ii) Additions based on unexplained deposits in bank account of group companies (Para 4. 5 on page 19) (iii) Disallowance of Bad debts (Para 4. 3 on page 16 & 17) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the above issues do not emerge from the assessment order of this year. Therefore, it is prayed that these observations being irrelevant in this year, may be directed to be expunged. " ITA No. 136/Ind/2011 1. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in passing this impugned order in gross violati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n making the following observations: i) That no books of accounts were impounded during the course of survey u/s 133A and only loose papers and documents were impounded, ii) That the assessee group had become violent and non co-operative during the course of survey. iii) That the appellant had attempted to destroy incriminating documents by tearing them during the course of survey. That the above observations and other similar allegations on the appellant are purely hear-say, undesired and uncalled for and adversely affecting the appellant at all stages. It is prayed that these observations may be expunged from the order. 10. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in discussing and giving directions on the following issues in this impugned order: a. Additions based on entries in loose papers, documents etc. impounded during survey (Para 4. 4 on page 18) b. Additions based on unexplained deposits in bank account of group companies (Para 4. 5 on page 19) c. Disallowance of Bad debts (Para 4. 3 on page 16 & 17) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the above issues do not emerge from the assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., is wrong and illegal and the same requires to be deleted. 6. That the Learned ClT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 14,80,000/- on account of alleged commission income @ 5 percent for providing share application money subject to observations in first appellate orders of A Y 200203 and A Y 2004-05 in the case of Lunkad Media & Entertainment Ltd. The said addition purely made on surmises and conjectures and also on the other facts and in the circumstances of the case, is wrong and illegal and the same requires to be deleted. 7. That the Learned ClT(A) erred in issuing directions to modify interest charged u/s 234B. That on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant is not liable for this interest, the same may very kindly be deleted. ITA No. 138/Ind/2011 I. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in passing this impugned order in gross violation of the principles of natural justice by not affording proper opportunity to the appellant. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating ground No. 1 that the assessment order dated 30. 12. 2009 purportedly passed u/s 143(3) r. w. s. 144, various observations made therein a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO has made the addition on protective basis. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the said addition is wrong, uncalled for and can neither be made on protective basis nor on substantive basis, hence, requires to be deleted. 4. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 25,40,660/- on account of alleged commission income @ 5 percent for providing loan entries subject to observations in appellate orders in the case of Lunkad Media & Entertainment Ltd. for A Y 2002-03 and A Y 2004-05. The said addition purely made on surmises and conjectures and also on the other facts and in the circumstances of the case, is wrong and illegal and the same requires to be deleted. 5. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 14,80,025/- on account of alleged commission income @ 5 percent for providing share application money subject to observations in appellate orders in the case of Lunkad Media & Entertainment Ltd. for A Y 2002-03 and A Y 2004-05. The said addition purely made on surmises and conjectures and also on the other facts and in the circumstances of the case, is wrong and illegal and the same requires to be delete....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....business of providing entries of unsecured loan, share application money, investment in real estate for needy persons who are actual beneficiaries. These persons used to give cash either directly to Lunkad or through mediators. The amount of cash so received were deposited in various bank accounts opened in the name of these companies. The Assessing Officer further observed that after being routed through one or more bank accounts of these companies through cheques, these sums were finally cleared in the bank accounts of beneficiaries. Lunkads used to charge commission on account of these entries ranging from 2% to 4% in cash from the beneficiaries. After the need of the beneficiaries for the entry was over, the reverse process started. Lunkads either used to withdraw cash from the bank for the cheques received from the beneficiaries or paid cash out of cash received from other beneficiaries. 4. The Assessing Officer also observed that on 21. 12. 2009 the assessee had furnished its submission. The assessee had furnished its reply by two submissions. It was also noticed that the contents of both the submissions were almost the same. The assessment proceedings for the assessment y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly to the questionnaire issued. The order clearly states that the matter be proceeded with only after the supply of the relevant books of accounts. A photocopy of the said order is enclosed herewith. It is once again requested that a certified copy of the books of accounts be supplied the copying charges have already been paid by us, so that assessment proceedings can be complied with. " After considering the assessee's reply, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has not furnished the relevant details asked for with respect to share capital/share application money credited and shown in balance sheet nor any reply was filed with regard to entries recorded in the incriminating documents found during the course of survey. As nothing was furnishing to substantiate the identity of share applicants even after giving several opportunities, the Assessing Officer added the entire amount of share capital/share application money is the assessee's income. Addition was made in the assessment year 2007-08 on the basis of entries in the loose sheets found during survey. The Assessing Officer also made addition on account of commission alleged to be earned by the assessee and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tually conducted a search. From the very beginning, the Appellant has been submitting that the operation was a search and not a survey. The fact that one of the Senior Officers namely Shri Hareshwar Sharma was not even authorized, but had entered the premises and conducted the search. This nauthorized Officer's presence was admitted by the Department in the reply filed in WP No. 4554/2006 in paragraph 5. 10. The operation was not a survey, but a search has been ultimately admitted by the Department in the letter dated 21. 12. 2011. 6. The order of impounding does not give any details of the papers and books of accounts illegally impounded by the Respondents. Apart from the documents shown to have been impounded in the order the officers of the Respondents have forcibly and unlawfully seized other documents, papers and books of accounts without bothering to furnish an official receipt / acknowledgement for the same. That Shri Vijay Lunkad lodged a report about this illegal act to Police Station, Tukoganj, Indore and the copy of the said report is filed herewith. 7. That apart from the documents, for which a panchnama was made on 2/3rd May 2006. Several documents pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rgue the Appeal. That several documents most of them not belong to this Company, copies whereof have been now delivered. The Appellant has to sort out and find out its own documents in order to make submissions in this Appeal. 11. The Department in its letter dated 25. 01. 2012 has taken a stand that the loose papers are books of accounts. On this issue, the Appellant prefers to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V. C. Shukla & Others reported in (1998) 3 SCC 410. In this judgment, the Supreme Court has held that "Book" ordinarily means a collection of sheets of paper or other material, blank, written, or printed, fastened or bound together so as to form a material whole. Loose sheets or scraps of paper cannot be termed as "book" for they can be easily detached and replaced. Therefore the two spiral notebooks (MR 68/91 and MR 71/91) and the two spiral pads (MR 69/91 and MR 70/91) are "books" within the meaning of Section 34, but not the loose sheets of papers contained in the two files (MR 72/91 and 73/91) 12. The Assessing Officer in the case of the Appellant has based his assessment on certai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In the end, the Appellant submits that the previous submissions are not repeated may kindly be read as part of this submission. All the grounds of appeal raised in the Appeal memo be treated as the grounds of the Appellant and because books of accounts are not in the hands of the Appellant, the Appellant is standing with folded hands under its disability of books. We have suffered six years of long and torturous litigation with the Department where the Department looking down upon us as a party that is concealing income. Such an opinion of the Department is wrong and baseless as shown hereinabove and in the interest of justice, it is prayed that the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals and the orders of assessment be set aside and quashed. " 7. On the other hand, the learned CIT DR, Shri Keshav Saxena, also filed written submissions along with copies of orders of judicial pronouncements which read as under :- "1. In the proceedings before AO and before CIT-(A) the Luncad group has not co-operated and has not explained the material impounded during survey on 02. 05. 2006. If the matter is set-aside to the AO by the Hon'ble ITAT, there is every likelihoo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies. " Once cash deposits in bank accounts becomes the basis of addition, the additions in earlier and later years is lawfully possible based on examination of bank accounts and it cannot be restricted to the period for which papers were impounded. 3. In the case of Mittal group the identification of Mittal group as a beneficiary was easy because the papers impounded from Luncad group themselves contained the entry of cash in name of 'Narmada' which is short form of 'Narmada Extrusion Pvt. Ltd. ', the main company of the Mittal Group. Therefore revenue correctly forwarded the argument that addition u/s 68 of various amounts of unsecured loan received by Mittal group from luncad group should be made in the hands of Mittal group and only commission income on such loan transaction should be taxed in the hands of Luncad group. But for other beneficiaries the details have to be given by the Luncad group because direct names of other beneficiaries are not appearing in the unaccounted cash book of luncad group wherein names like 'Sunil', 'Darak', 'Bindal', 'Tulsiyan', 'Bantiaji', 'Bansi', 'P. G. ', 'Mehtaji', 'Sanjeev', etc appear. If the director of Luncad grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar 2007-08. Whatever addition has been made was on account of share application money received by the assessee for which details i. e. names, addresses and other particulars of share applicants could not be furnished by the assessee. The assessee also did not furnish any confirmation from any of these share applicants, therefore, the Assessing Officer has added the entire amount of share capital in the income of the assessee as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. 9. The assessee has wrongly alleged in para 1 that the appeal was fixed for hearing on 23. 1. 2012 which was adjourned to 30. 1. 2012. From the order sheet, we find that all these cases were first fixed for hearing on 22nd November, 2011 but nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee. The cases were, therefore, adjourned and the learned CIT DR was directed to effect fresh service of notice on the assessee. The cases were adjourned to 21st December, 2011. On 21st December, 2011, Shri P. M. Mehta, Advocate, and Shri K. Bashir, appeared on behalf of the assessee and moved application for adjournment with the request that the department may be directed to supply copies of the papers seized by the department. In reply, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e submissions made by him in writing and has not stated anything on merits of addition made by the Assessing Officer and which were confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). No documentary evidence was filed to dislodge the finding recorded by the lower authorities while making additions. From the record we found that in all these cases, survey was conducted u/s 133A of the Act at the business premises of Lunkad group of companies on 2. 5. 2006. The Assessing Officer has given list of companies and the list of bank accounts through which the assessee company was doing business. The Assessing Officer stated that Lunkad group was involved in providing accommodation entries. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has also reproduced the seized documents found during the course of survey starting from 3rd April, 2006 till 1. 5. 2006 indicating receipt and payment of cash. The Assessing Officer has also given details of noting in LPS15, LPS-19, LPS-20, 30 and 31. As per the Assessing Officer, the assessee was receiving cash from different persons which was deposited in the bank account. As per the Assessing Officer, the assessee was also earning commission i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... observed that scanning of Schedule I of the balance sheet furnished along with original return of income has revealed that during the previous year 2001-02 the assessee has shown introduction in share application money of Rs. 1,94,16,000/-. The Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee had not given names of persons/concerns and also other particulars of the amounts introduced in their names under the head share capital in the return. However, no addition has been made by Assessing Officer on account of any advance given by assessee or investment in shares of other companies. As per the Assessing Officer, onus heavily lies on the assessee to establish the identcity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the entries credited in the books of accounts. By taking into account the fact that the assessee has not furnished any evidence much less a material evidence to substantiate the amounts received by way of share application money, he added the entire amount as unexplained in the assessee's hands u/s 68 of the Act. We find that the Assessing Officer has given much opportunities to the assessee and also issued many questionnaires with regard to filing of the details for such sha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....him on account of share capital. Accordingly, as per the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals), no separate addition was called for on this account. In view of the finding given by the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) while confirming the addition on account of share capital, we do not find any infirmity in his order for not making separate addition on account of commission income alleged to be earned by the assessee as well as disallowance of part of the expenditure. Thus, we confirm the action of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). 15. The additions in the Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2005-06 in the hands of various assessees have been made on similar reasoning which have been dealt with by the Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) in detail. Following the reasoning given by us hereinabove, we confirm the action of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) in respect of all the years and in the cases of all the assessees before us. Now we deal with A. Y. 2007-08 16. In the assessment year 2007-08, the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of incriminating documents found during s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8/4/2006 mehtaji 2,000,000 8/4/2006 Darak 500,000 8/4/2006 Bank 2,530,000 8/4/2006 Bank 700,000 8/4/2006 Darak packet ret 10,000 8/4/2006 Laxminarayan 7,000 8/4/2006 Ananya bus 5,000 8/4/2006 Sanju personal 2,000 10/4/2006 Mehtaji 2,000,000 10/4/2006 Darak shortre 10,000 10/4/2006 Bank 990,000 10/4/2006 Bank 995,000 10/4/2006 Audit 2,000 10/4/2006 Air conditioner 1,000 10/4/2006 Ritesh personal 1,000 10/4/2006 Form 1,000 10/4/2006 Cable 500 10/4/2006 Bindal 2,000 10/4/2006 Dhar 25,000 12/4/2006 mehtaji 12/4/2006 Bank 12/4/2006 Darak car 12/4/2006 Sunil 12/4/2006 Salary ghan 12/4/2006 Tennis racket 12/4/2006 Rajesh 12/4/2006 p. g. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 22/4/2006 Bracket 3,000 24/4/2006 Darak 1,050,000 24/4/2006 Bank 1,990,000 24/4/2006 Sunil 250,000 24/4/2006 Plants dhar 10,000 24/4/2006 Sanju dhar 8,000 24/4/2006 Getz pet 2,000 25/4/2006 Narmada 300,000 25/4/2006 Bank 1,795,000 25/4/2006 Bank 50,000 25/4/2006 Opel repair 2,000 25/4/2006 Sunshine society 10,000 25/4/2006 ICICI Bank 25,000 25/4/2006 Dhar 30,000 25/4/2006 p. g. 500,000 25/4/2006 p. g. 1,500,000 25/4/2006 Swati ticket 5,000 26/4/2006 Ajay 1,000,000 26/4/2006 Darak 4,000,000 26/4/2006 Bank 995,000 26/4/2006 Anjli challan 2,000 26/4/2006 Sanju 50,000 26/4/2006 Bank 750,000 27/4/2006 Bank 1,990,000 27/4/2006 Bank 10,000 27/4/2006 Sanjay Agrawal on a/c 41,000 27/4/2006 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....being unexplained cash deposit. However, the Assessing Officer has made this addition on substantive basis in the hands of Lunkad Securities Limited, Indore, this amount was also added by the Assessing Officer on protective basis in the hands of Lunkad Media & Entertainment Limited, Rajvir Marketing & Investment Limited, and Parksons Securities Limited. 18. In an appeal before the CIT(A), it was observed by CIT(A) that nothing could be produced by the assessee to substantiate the said deposit of cash in the Bank account amounting to Rs. 5,87,00,200/-. The CIT(A) has also given opportunity to the assessee to furnish explanation to the assessee and to show as to which company these entries pertain, but the assessee failed to do the same. Therefore, he confirmed the addition in the hands of all these four companies equally on substantive basis after having the following observations :- "During the assessment proceedings, the assessee did not furnish any explanation as regards to these entries. In the circumstances, Assessing Officer had made addition amounting to Rs. 4,23,90,074/- and Rs. 5,00,87,200/- on these accounts on substantive basis in the hands of Lunkad Securitie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e same in the hands of four companies amounting in total Rs. 5,87,00,200/-. The CIT(A) has also got coterminous power. Since the CIT(A) has also not considered any other document in making/confirming addition, we had no reason for going beyond this statement. 20. Contention of the ld. Authorized Representative was that copy of entire seized documents and books of account were not furnished to the assessee, therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified. In this connection, we found that the Assessing Officer has given copy of this statement to the assessee, which was found during course of survey, which clearly indicate date-wise receipt and deposit of cash in the bank account and Assessing Officer has made addition only with respect to this document. However, no further addition was made on the basis of any entry in the books of account if any impounded by the Department, therefore, contention of the ld. Authorized Representative to the effect that since the copies of books of accounts were not given to the assessee, no addition should have been made, has no merit. As the addition was made only on the basis of this incriminating documents, not only copy....