TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on which basis, satisfaction was recorded by the AO on 13.05.2019 and notice u/s 153C of the Act also dated 13.05.2019 was issued to assessee. The said satisfaction noted is placed at page nos. 1 and 2 of the Assessment Order. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed her e-return of income filed on 17.06.2019, declaring a total income of Rs. 4,97,570/-. 2.1 The AO noted that during the course of search at the house of Sh. Rajiv Bansal & Sh Sanjay Bansal i.e. at H.No. L-506, Model Town, Karnal, some incriminating documents were found and were seized as Annexure A-1. The AO further noted that among these documents, one gift deed executed on 09.03.2017 for a gift made on dated 08.08.2016 of Rs 6,00,000/-, 07.11.2016 of Rs. 3,00,000/-, 17.11.2016 of Rs. 3,00,000/-, 04.03.2017 of Rs. 6,00,000/- and 09.03.2017 of Rs. 4,40,000/-, total of which comes Rs. 22,40,000/- given by Smt. Indu Bansal to her brother-in-law Sh. Rajiv Bansal was also seized. The AO further noted that during the course of search, statement of Smt. Indu Bansal was recorded on oath u/s 132(4) of the Act, and she was confronted with this deed and was requested to explain the source of it but in her statemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t source of Rs. 5,03,430/- out of amount of Rs. 10,40,000/- transferred to Shri Rajiv Bansal from The Panipat Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. stands substantiated. Regarding the balance source of cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the same could not be substantiated with any cogent documentary evidences during assessment as well as during the appellate proceeding. 3.1 The ld. CIT (A) noted that perusal of the bank statement of the assessee in the State Bank of India, Karnal showed that before transferring an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to Shri Rajiv Bansal, there were cash deposits entries of equivalent amount in her bank account. Similar observations of cash deposits in the bank account of Smt. Shalini Bansal and Shri Ram Niwas Bansal before making payment to Shri Rajiv Bansal, was also noted by the Ld. CIT(A). Further, the contention of the assessee that gift deed was wrongly prepared was not accepted by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that transactions mentioned in the gift deed took place on the exact same dates as appeared therein and were duly corroborated from the respective bank account statements. The ld. CIT (A) further observed that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the proceedings initiated under section 153C against the assessee and the assessment framed under section 153C are in violation of the statutory conditions of the Act and the procedure prescribed under the law and as such the same is bad in the eye of law and liable to be quashed 5 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO despite the fact that order passed under Section 153C of the Act is bad and liable to be quashed as the same has been framed consequent to a search which itself was unlawful and invalid in the eye of law. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Act and the assessment framed under the said section is bad and liable to be quashed in the absence of any valid satisfaction being recorded by the assessing officer of the searched person as well as the assessing officer of the assessee. 7 On the facts and circumstances of the case, learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arding the source of this gift. Thus, assessee has owned up the document and therefore, there is no dispute that this seized document belongs to the assessee. Further, the fact that the assessee despite signing the document and owing the signature on the said document as hers, but being unaware of any such gift and her inability to explain regarding the source of the said gift makes it an incriminating document. As discussed later in this order, the assessee did not want to incriminate herself on the basis of the said incriminating document on the date of search because the source of the said gift amounting to Rs. 22,40,000/- mentioned in the said seized document was not explainable at that point of time, i.e. on the date of search in this group on 22.01.2018, when she was asked to explain the source of the said gift amounting to Rs. 22,40,000/-. Therefore, the seized document is an incriminating document belonging to the assessee and thus the contention of the assessee, that the addition made by the AO under Section 153C of the Act was bad in law in the absence of any incriminating material belonging to the assessee being found during the course of the search, is not sustainable a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ils with regard to deposit of cash in the bank accounts and payment of cash to appellant were also disclosed. 15. That the settlement application of Sh. Sanjay Bansal has been duly considered by the ITSC at para 13.7, after due verification by the AO and after due consideration of the enhancement proposed by the Ld. AO in the cash flow submitted, which was duly accepted by Sh. Sanjay Bansal. Therefore, the sources of deposit of cash are duly explained by the husband of the assessee in his application, which was approved. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble ITSC has allowed capitalization of all the income disclosed before it at para 14.1. 16. It is settled law that where an amount which has already offered in hands of relevant persons, cannot be taxed twice in the Assessee's hand. 17. The explanation submitted by the assessee was not rebutted by AO and ignoring the explanation submitted by assessee, AO made addition of Rs. 22,40,000/-. 18. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). 19. Before CIT(A), assessee reiterated submissions made before AO. 20. Ld. CIT(A) accepted the explan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n this issue or making any further inquiry. Similarly, the confirmation of the said amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- paid by Shri Ram Niwas Bansal and Smt. Shalini Bansal respectively from their respective bank accounts by the Ld. CIT(A) in the hands of the assessee, on the ground that, in view of the peculiar facts of the case, the possibility of the fact that the assessee herself deposited cash in bank accounts to Smt. Shalini Bansal and Shri Ram Niwas Bansal for routing her unexplained money through them cannot be avoided, is not acceptable in view of absence of any inquiry or any credible evidence suggesting such a finding. To that extent, the claim of the assessee that it was a draft deed is acceptable. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/-, totaling Rs. 9,00,000/- out of balance addition of Rs. 17,36,570/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), in absence of any cogent evidence and any enquiry, cannot be sustained in the hands of the assessee and the same is deleted. However, we also clarify that the claim of the assessee that the impugned gift deed being a draft deed being found acceptable as stated above does not make the said seized document as noni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Total 5,76,000/- 04.03.2017- RTGS of Rs. 6,00,000/-was made to Shri Rajiv Bansal Date Cash Deposit Gold Sales 09.03.2017 1,20,000/- 04.03.2017- By clearing- Rs. 27,480/- on account of 'gold sale' which has been treated as explained by Ld. CIT(A). 6,96,000/- 09.03.2017 -RTGS of Rs. 4,40,000/- made to Shri Rajiv Bansal 10.5 It is explained by the assessee that her husband Shri Sanjay Bansal in his application dated 16.12.2019 before the Settlement Commission had submitted his cash ledger, which was also verified by the AO, from wherein the sources of cash from his firms which was also before the ITSC and also Annexure-3, wherein all the details with regard to deposit of cash in the bank accounts and payment of cash to assessee were also disclosed. It was further explained that the settlement application of Shri Sanjay Bansal was duly considered by the ITSC at para 13.7, which after due verification by the AO and after due consideration of the enhancement proposed by the learned AO in the cash flow submitted, was duly accepted by Shri Sanjay Bansal. It was submitted that thus the sources of cash d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amounts remained unexplained: 1. 2013-14 Rs. 10,20,000/- 2. 2014-15 Rs. 26,34,000/- 3. 2015-16 Rs. 21,50,000/- 4. 2016-17 Rs. 43,70,460/- 5. 2017-18 Rs. 1,44,38,285/- Applicant's submission:- The details given by the Ld. PCIT in rule 9 regarding year wise transaction report is factually wrong. The details of year wise entry has been tabulated in the above table. The applicant has declared additional income of Rs. 56,00,000/- and propose to surrender additional income of Rs. 21,00,000/-, Year wise break of each year of additional income is as under:- FY 2011-12 Rs. 1,00,000/- FY 2012-13 Rs. 1,00,000/- FY 2013-14 Rs. 4,00,000/- FY 2014-15 Rs. 2,00,000/- FY 2015-16 Rs. 1,00,000/- FY 2016-17 Rs. 1,00,000/- FY 2017-18 Rs. 11,00,000/- The applicant is partner in M/s P.S. Arogya Trading Company, petition of the said firm is also pending before hon'ble ISB and the applicant has received share of his income from undisclosed income declared in the said firm. Copy of cash book of the applicant from undisclosed income surrendered in the present petition additional income now o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icate but in order to avoid any litigation the same has been offered in the spirit of settlement in AY 2016-17. Besides the above there were certain income considered in fund flow but not been taken care while filing the additional income and the same has also been offered in respective years to the tune of Rs. 21,00,000/-. The AO has stated that it is not clear as to how the amounts of discrepancy have been worked out. However, the AO has verified each noting on the seized material and found that the same have been considered by the applicant. In view of the above findings enhancement is required to the tune of Rs. 25,92,000/- as under- F.Y. Income reported in fund flow but not considered for taxation Amount offered in J.V FY 2011-12 1,00,000 FY 2012-13 1,00,000 FY 2013-14 4,00,000 FY 2014-15 2,00,000 FY 2015-16 1,00,000 4,92,000 FY 2016-17 1,00,000 FY 2017-18) 11,00,000 21,00,000 4,92,000 Total 25,92,000 We have carefully considered the rival contentions, facts on records and joint verification report. The mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ld. IBS-V, Mumbai, after considering the above facts, enhanced the income by Rs. 25,92,000/-, wherein only a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was enhanced in Assessment Year 2017-18, whereas the source of Rs. 8,36,430/- as discussed above is required to be explained by the assessee in the appeal before us for A.Y. 2017-18. The fact emerging out of the above discussion as per the AO's report in the order of the IBS-V Mumbai, is that Rs. 6,00,000/- was paid by Shri Sanjay Bansal to Smt. Indu Bansal as on 31.03.2016, whereas the gifts by the assessee to Shri Rajiv Bansal were made by the assessee from her respective bank account vide cheque /RTGS in F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to A.Y. 2017-18 at a much later date and the sources thereof are as under: Sr. No. Date Amount of Gift Source i. 07.11.2016 Rs. 3,00,000/- cash deposit of Rs. 3,10,000/- on various dates between 24.10.2016 to 03.11.2016 as per details narrated in para no. 10.3 page no. 17-18 of this order ii 4.03.2017 Rs. 6,00,000/- cash deposit of Rs. 5,76,000/-on various dates between 16.08.2016 to 02.03.2017 + part of gold sales clearing cheque amounting to Rs. 4,75,950/- as per details narrated in para no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had claimed that a sum of Rs. 6.91 lacs given to his wife Smt. Indu Bansal, on various dates in A.Y. 2017-18 and which was deposited in her bank account was out of his undisclosed income from M/S PS Arogya Trading Company and the final acceptance of the said application of M/S P S Arogya Trading Company by the IBSV, Mumbai is not on record before us. 10.11 The perusal of the written submission of the assessee as reproduced earlier in this order and the findings of the AO in his report in the IBS-V's order, as referred above that Rs. 6,00,000/- was given by Shri Sanjay Bansal to the assessee on 31.03.2016 and the order dated 11.08.2023 of the IBS-V, Mumbai relied upon by the assessee, does not make it clear, how the claim of Shri Sanjay Bansal, for giving sum of Rs. 6.91 lacs in cash on various dates in A.Y. 2017- 18 to the assessee, the source of the gift in question to the extent of Rs. 6,91,000/- is explained. This leaves a further balance of Rs. 1,45,430/- (Rs. 8,36,430 - Rs. 6.91,000) of the gift amount for which no explanation has been offered by the assessee. Therefore, in the given facts of the case, the above claim of the assessee with respect to source of Rs. 8,36,430/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilise it männer. RIMINIWAS fammiwars Place: - Karnal Date: - 09/03/2017 Witness: Kannche Indu Bansal Indy 1. Rammehur 31,82- Junetra Steung Villays - Buchfur Pol Biznes, Kanni The gift as stated above is acc Rajiv Barral (Rajiv Bansal) Document 2 GIFT DEED i Sit. Indu Bansal w/o Sh. Sanjay Bansal R/o 506L, Model Town, Fern do hereby on dated 09/03/2017 make a gift-deed for a gift made on Sat 08/08/2016 & 7/11/2016 & 17/11/2016 & 04/03/2017 and 09/03/2017 Rs.2240000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lac Forty Thousand Only) out cf-lc and affection to my brother in law, Sh. Rajiv Bansal S/o Sh, Ran niv Bansal R/o 506 L, Model Town, Karnal. I confirm that I am a resident Indian. I, further confirm that this gift is ba made out of my own funds standing to the credit of my Saving A/c !! 017001000002 in The Panipat Urban Co-operative Bank Itd, Meerut Rs.c Karnal. I. further confirm that the consideration for this gift is the love and af. x for my brother in law Sh. Rajiv Bansal, Karnal and no other considera q I am an Income Tax assessee having PAN- AHOPB3289R and assx with Income Tax Karnal and this gift is made out of my past savings. I further confirm tha....