TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 941
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal vide ITA No. 697/JPR/2025 for A.Y 2014-15 as under: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in allowing assessee's appeal without appreciating the fact that the AO has recorded reasons after analysing the information available on records? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in quashing the entire reassessment proceedings u/s. 147? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in ignoring the facts that credible information regarding accommodation entry is available on record? 4. The appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal vide ITA No. 705/JPR/2025 for A.Y 2013-14 as under: 1. Wheth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l before us. 3. We have gone through the order of the Ld. CIT (A), order of the AO and submissions of the assessee filed before us alongwith the arguments taken by both the sides to the dispute. It is observed that during the year under consideration the assessee firm received following amounts from different parties as under: S. No. Name of Parties Principle Amount Interest 01. Karda Traders Rs. 11 Lacs Rs. 39,060/- 02. Keshav Trading Co. Rs. 1.45 Cr. Rs. 4.97 Lacs 03. Macro IT Systems Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 30 Lacs Rs. 1,00,600/- 04. Mahadev Investments Rs. 1.53 Cr. Rs. 5.26 Lacs 05. Mahalaxmi Trading Co. Rs. 4 Lacs Rs. 14,470/- 06. Sai Infoweb Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 10 Lacs Rs. 35,510/- 07. Shree Kant Bagaria Rs. 1.2 Cr. Rs. 12,30,480/- 08. Shubh Labh Traders Rs. 76 Lacs Rs. 2,59,960/- 09. Subhadra Securities Rs. 27 Lacs Rs. 93,210/- 10. Zen Tradex Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 15 Lacs Rs. 52,770/- 11 Nine Corporate Inceptions Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 18 Lacs Rs. 58,920/- Total Rs. 6.09 Cr. Rs. 29,07,580/- 4. Out of these 11 parties mentioned (supra), the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure and source of such sum so credited." In view of the above, the proviso specifically, made the person accountable and included in the enquiry to explain the nature and source of the sum so credited in his/her name in the books of the assessee. The provision contained in section 68 of the Act, read with proviso mentioned (supra) do not leave any room for the argument, that the amount received during the year and simultaneously squared up also during the same Financial Year can't be charged to tax and there is no need to fulfill the conditions pertaining to section 68 of the Act as under: A). Identity of the Creditors; B). Genuineness of the Transaction and C). Creditworthiness of the Party. 6. These three elements are the basic pillars/conditions to be fulfilled by the assessee to avoid the chargeability of tax u/s. 68 of the Act. Rather, now the proviso went one step ahead by including the creditors also in the list of proving the transaction alongwith the assessee. On this aspect, we referred the order of the AO, as there is no finding in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) on this issue (As the matter was decided by him on legal issue only).....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvestment (Copy of A.Y. 2014-15) Rs. 5,455/- Rs. 1,53,00,000/- Rs. 5,26,000/- 05. Rekha Jain Rs. 5,20,220/- (Amount of Refund claimed Rs. 300/-) Rs. 4,00,000/- Rs. 14,470/- 06. Sai Infoweb Rs. 2,15,013/- (Amount of Refund claimed Rs. 3,720/-) Rs. 10,00,000/- Rs. 35,510/- 07. Shubh Labh Traders Rs. 78,986/- (Amount of Refund claimed Rs. 1,550/-) Rs. 76,00,000/- Rs. 2,59,560/- 08. Subhadra Securities Rs. 4,139/- (Tax Payable NIL) Rs. 27,00,000/- Rs. 93,210/- 09. Zen Tradex Rs. 1,44,992/- (Amount of Refund claimed Rs. 49,900/-) Rs. 15,00,000/- Rs. 52,770/- 10. Nine Corporate Rs. 2,24,333/- (Amount of Refund claimed Rs. 78,050/-) Rs. 18,00,000/- Rs. 58,920/- 9. The table prepared (supra) clearly demonstrates the doubtful nature and absence of creditworthiness of the parties concerned. It's a typical model of entry operators where they either file return of income below taxable or always claim the refund of T.D.S. deducted out of such transactions. Uptil, the bench is trying to analyse the facts of the matter in the light of documents not under challenge and produced by the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It was open to the assessee to raise the question that the finding that those amounts were income received from undisclosed sources was not based on any evidence or was, for other reasons, perverse. He did raise some questions of this type before the Tribunal for reference to the High Court but the Tribunal did not think that those questions legitimately arose and did not refer them to the High Court. The assessee accepted the decision of the Tribunal and did not move the High Court to direct a reference in regard to those questions under section 66(2). Those questions, therefore, could not be raised at this stage." In the instant case also, the assessee primarily relying on technical issues and effectively has nothing to say on merits of the case. 13. [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT "Now, the law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him. If he disputes the liability for tax, it is for him to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of such proof, the revenue is entitled to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... additions under section 68 to income of assessee - High Court by impugned order held that since assessee had failed to produce any confirmation from said alleged creditor ARC or produce its owner in person for cross examination and also failed to establish identity of creditor and genuineness of alleged loan transaction, impugned additions under section 68 was justified - Whether Special Leave Petition against said impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 2]" [2024] 159 taxmann.com 28 (SC) Virendra Behari Aggarwal vs. CIT "Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Cash credits (Loan) - Assessment year 2001-02- High Court by impugned order held that where assessee claimed to have taken loans from his two minor sons and source of loan was stated to be gift received by assessee's sons from their uncle i.e., brother of assessee, since assessee's brother categorically stated that they had not given any gifts to anybody, impugned addition made by Assessing Officer in respect of loan amount was to be confirmed - Whether SLP filed by assessee against said impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 2] [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) PCI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hareholders were either non-existent, or lacked creditworthiness. [Para 9] 15. Since the assessee did not give the details of the credits appearing in its accounts, those entries stand unexplained and therefore, the addition made under section 68 of the Act is justified. The CIT (A) finding on the issue of applicability of section 68 of the Act was not expressly there by the assessee before the tribunal and therefore, no fresh submissions on this count could be entertained by us and that is too it's Revenue's appeal. The key takeaways could be listed as under: (i) When there is credit in the books of account and such credit being loan or borrowing it has to pass the test of section 68 of the Act; (ii) Even if the loan or borrowing is squared up in the year, it could be tested for the purposes of section 68 of the Act. Obviously, in accommodation entries the lending or borrowing may be squared up and therefore, it is also caught in the net of verification of its veracity. The assessee's arguments and reliance on various judicial precedents will also be dealt in this order later in relevant paras. 16. Considering the above discussion on facts and l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubstance and impose the tax on the actual controlling Non-Resident Enterprise. Thus, whether a transaction is used principally as a colourable device for the distribution of earnings, profits and gains, is determined by a review of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction. It is in the above cases that the principle of lifting the corporate veil or the doctrine of substance over form or the concept of beneficial ownership or the concept of alter ego arises. There are many circumstances, apart from the one given above, where separate existence of different companies, that are part of the same group, will be totally or partly ignored as a device or a conduit (in the pejorative sense). [Para 67]" 17. Courts have evolved doctrines like piercing the corporate veil, substance over form etc. enabling taxation of underlying assets in cases of fraud, sham, tax avoidant, etc. However, genuine strategic tax planning is not ruled out. Lifting the corporate veil doctrine can, therefore, be applied in tax matters even in the absence of any statutory authorisation to that effect. 18. Next issue before us is jurisdictional ground raised under Rule 27 of the ITAT, Rules ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2014. Further, the Assessing Officer while issuing notice under section 142(1) of the Act which is enclosed with the first questionnaire would proceed to verify only the specific aspects requiring examination/verification. In such cases, all efforts would be made to ensure that assessment proceedings are completed expeditiously in minimum possible number of hearings without unnecessarily dragging the case till the time-barring date. 4. In case, during the course of assessment proceedings, it is found that there is potential escapement of income exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs (for non-metro charges, the monetary limit shall be Rs. 5 lakhs) on any other issue(s) apart from the AIR/CIB/26AS information based on which the case was selected under CASS requiring substantial verification, the case may be taken up for comprehensive scrutiny with the approval of the Pr. CIT/DIT concerned. However, such an approval shall be accorded by the Pr. CIT/DIT in writing after being satisfied about merits of the issue(s) necessitating wider and detailed scrutiny in the case. Cases so taken up for detailed scrutiny shall be monitored by the Jt. CIT/Addl. CIT concerned. 5. The contents of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inate bench also came across the similar matter as before us and held as under: The CBDT has, under section 119(2)(a), the power to issue directions or instructions to the Income-tax authorities (not prejudicial to the assessee) for the purpose of proper and efficient management of the work of assessment and collection of the revenue as to the guidelines, principles or procedures to be followed by them in the work relating to assessment or collection of revenue, and which may be either by way of relaxation of any of the provisions specified therein, which includes section 143, or otherwise. The Instruction F. No. 225/26/2006-ITA.II (Pt), dated 8-9-2010 would, therefore, be binding on the Assessing Officer, an Income-tax authority under section 116. Selection under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) is on the basis of various criteria listed for selection of returns of income for scrutiny under the Act, including third party information (i.e., information from a party who is not a party to the transaction, as, for example, a registering authority). It is this information, which a third party is statutorily obliged to give to the revenue on an annual basis, that is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it is the information received through the AIR return/s that is relevant, and there is no scope either for its verification or vetting or explanation at that stage. In fact, it may well be that the assessee, who represents the first party, is liable to be assessed in his representative capacity, treating him as an agent of the non-resident principal under section 163. The 'jurisdictional' fact of the notice being in respect of an AIR case stands established, and its legality, therefore, cannot be questioned. The next question is if the assessee having furnished the PAN of his brother, clarifying his role to be no more than his representative, the party of the first part in the sale deed, which is the subject matter of AIR information, ought the Assessing Officer to have dropped the proceedings. There is no legal mandate for the same. Rather, section 119(1)(a) clearly places a restriction on the power of the Board to issue any orders, instructions or directions requiring any income tax authority to make a particular assessment or to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner. In other words, proscribes placing a restriction on the power of inquiry of the As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed by the ACIT. Circle-Jhunjhunu having jurisdiction over the case. 23. On this issue, the bench confronted the Ld. Counsel of the assessee with the judicial pronouncement in the case of [2023] 151 taxmann.com 434 (SC) DCIT (Exem.) vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court by reversing the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, held as under: "The jurisdiction had been changed after the returns were filed. However, the records also reveals that the assessee had participated pursuant to the notice issued under section 142 (1) and had not questioned the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. Section 124(3) (a) precludes the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice under section 142 (1). [Para 1] In the present case, the facts did not warrant the order made by the High Court. At the same time, this Court notices that the High Court had granted liberty to the concerned authority to issue appropriate notice. It is clarified, therefore, that the Assessing Officer is free to complete the assessment (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the shareholders was in question. * Distinction: The case relates to share capital/share premium transactions, not loan transactions. It does not address the effect of loans being squared off or repaid in the same financial year. Hence, not directly applicable to the present issue. 4. Shankar Industries v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 689 (Cal.) * Laid down that for cash credits in the books, the assessee must prove (i) identity of creditor, (ii) capacity of creditor to advance the money, and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. * In that case, the assessee proved only the identity of the creditor and failed to establish the other two elements. Hence, the addition was upheld. * Distinction: In contrast, where the assessee has established all three requirements and has also repaid the loan within the year, Section 68 has no application. * Rohini Builders, Nimbus (India) Ltd., and Shankar Industries deal with different factual scenarios concerning the scope of proof under Section 68 of the Act, unexplained share capital, or incomplete evidence of creditors. None of them directly address the specific fact situation of repayment within th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bove citations, the ratio as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (supra) has been referred or discussed at all. Once, on similar facts the Hon'ble Apex Court has decided the issue in dispute, there is no further scope for any other interpretation. 27. The Ld. Counsel flooded the bench with all the material available in the Income Tax commentary on the earth, except the reply to the bench on the issue of applicability of the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (supra). In view of the above discussion on facts and the law applicable, it is observed that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) is perverse in nature as the same has been passed without considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (supra). Hence, the same is set-aside and the relevant ground raised by the Revenue is allowed by sustaining the order of the AO on the issue under consideration. 28. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No. 705/JPR/2025 is allowed and the order of the AO is sustained on the issue under considerati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cs Rs. 39,060/- 02. Keshav Trading Co. Rs. 1.45 Cr. Rs. 4.97 Lacs 03. Macro IT Systems Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 30 Lacs Rs. 1,00,600/- 04. Mahadev Investments Rs. 1.53 Cr. Rs. 5.26 Lacs 05. Mahalaxmi Trading Co. Rs. 4 Lacs Rs. 14,470/- 06. Sai Infoweb Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 10 Lacs Rs. 35,510/- 07. Shubh Labh Traders Rs. 76 Lacs Rs. 2,59,960/- 08. Subhadra Securities Rs. 27 Lacs Rs. 93,210/- 09. Zen Tradex Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 15 Lacs Rs. 52,770/- 10 Nine Corporate Inceptions Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 18 Lacs Rs. 58,920/- Total Rs. 4.89 Cr. Rs. 16.77 Lacs 32. Based on the above information a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 13.11.2017. In response to the notice the assessee filed its return of income on 11.04.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 18,49,16,448/-. Ultimately an addition of Rs. 9.78 lacs was made @ 2% of Rs. 4.89 Cr. u/s. 69C of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) who in term deleted the addition and allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Ld. CIT (A) allowed the present appeal of the assessee on the premise of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on 17.12.2015 in the case of Shri Anand Kumar Jain and Shri Naresh Kumar Jain (the Jain brothers) who are in the business providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries through cheques/DD/RTGS/NEFT in lieu of cash, through various papers and dummy companies/concerned floated and controlled by them. Both the persons mentioned above are practicing Chartered Accountants. However, their main business at the point of time is restricted to providing accommodation entries. 38. For this purpose, they have created certain entities such as companies and firms, which are managed and controlled by them. It was established during the investigations, these are only paper companies/entities used to route the unaccounted income and provide bogus accounts for non-existent transactions. In addition, it has been exposed through search and seizure operations and the post search action of investigations, that the Jain brothers control a number of bank accounts of these shell companies/concerns for effectuating the routing of these entries. The 'Jain Brothers' had also accepted that they have charged 2-6% of commission for providing such loan entries. Further, as per information ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her, an Inspector was deputed to enquire about the whereabouts of the said companies which were alleged to be managed by the Jain Brothers. From report submitted by the inspector it is gathered that the alleged companies namely (a) Purus Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (b) Groupone informative Services Pvt Ltd. (c) Karda Traders Pvt. Ltd. & (d) Macro IT System Pvt. Ltd. were not working at the given addresses. He had further submitted in his report that no person nearby had ever heard about such companies in the locality. The enquiry report submitted by the inspector of this office is as under :- S. No. Name/Address Remark 1. M/s. Groupone Informative Services Pvt. Ltd., 7B/11A, Sriniwas Puri, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065 The address is not traceable; it means it is not genuine address. 2. M/s. Karda Traders Pvt. Ltd 25, H Packet A1, Mayur Vihar, Phase-3, New Delhi-110009. It is residential colony and no such office/company exists as on date. On local inquiry it is learnt that no such office was there with this name. M/s. Karda Traders Pvt. Ltd. B- 163, Amar Colony Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024 There is not office and only residential house. On ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the assessee had filed Its return of Income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 30/11/2014 declaring total Income of Rs. 8,60,72,470/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. Consequently the assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 08/12/2016 at the declared income Consequently, an Information was received by this office on 12/04/2017 which says that a search and seizure operation was conducted on 17.12.2015 in the case of Shri Anand Kumar Jain and Shri Naresh Kumar Jain (the Jain brothers) who are in the-business providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries through cheques/DD/RTGS/NEFT in IIeu of cash, through various papers and dummy companies/concerned floated and controlled by them. Both the persons mentioned above are practicing Chartered Accountants. However, their main business at the point of time is restricted to providing accommodation entries. For this purpose they have created certain entities such as companies and firms which are managed and controlled by them. It was established during the investigations, these are only paper companies/entities used to route the unaccounted income and provide bogus accounts for non- existent tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e parties furnished before us vide paper book dated: 11.09.2025 page nos. 188 to 191 and following information relevant to the matter emerged out of that as under: S. No. Name of the Party Returned Income Amount of loan Given to the Assessee Amount of interest Received from the Assessee 01. Karda Traders Rs. 3,73,333/- (Amount of Refund claimed Rs. 4,35,430/-) Rs. 78,00,000/- Rs. 9,32,515/- 02. Macro IT System Rs. 1,97,052/- (Amount of Refund claimed Rs. 57,310/-) Rs. 41,00,000/- Rs. 4,90,652/- 03. Purus Marketing Rs. 23,301/- (Amount of Refund claimed Rs. 3,35,100/-) Rs. 90,00,000/- Rs. 10,75,562/- 04. Groupone Informative Services Rs. 2,00,330/- (Amount of Refund claimed Rs. 2 Lacs/-) figures not legible Rs. 91,00,000/- Rs. 10,87,627/- 47. The table prepared (supra) clearly demonstrates the doubtful nature and absence of creditworthiness of the parties concerned. It's a typical model of entry operators where they either file return of income below taxable or always claim the refund of T.D.S. deducted out of such transactions. Uptil, the bench is trying to analyse the facts of the matter in the light....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, could not be raised at this stage." In the instant case also, the assessee primarily relying on technical issues and effectively has nothing to say on merits of the case. 50. [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT "Now, the law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him. If he disputes the liability for tax, it is for him to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of such proof, the revenue is entitled to treat it as taxable income. To put it differently, where the nature and source of a receipt whether it be of money or of other property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that that income is from any particular source." [2018] 96 taxmann.com 255 (SC) Konark Structural Engineers (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT "Assessee-company was carrying on business as builders and developers - During relevant year, assessee received certain amount as share ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1961- Cash credits (Loan) - Assessment year 2001-02- High Court by impugned order held that where assessee claimed to have taken loans from his two minor sons and source of loan was stated to be gift received by assessee's sons from their uncle i.e., brother of assessee, since assessee's brother categorically stated that they had not given any gifts to anybody, impugned addition made by Assessing Officer in respect of loan amount was to be confirmed - Whether SLP filed by assessee against said impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 2] [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) PCIT (Central)-1 vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. The use of the words 'any sum found credited in the books' in section 68 indicates that the section is widely worded, and includes investments made by the introduction of share capital or share premium.[Para 8.1] * as per settled law, the initial onus is on the assessee to establish by cogent evidence, the genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the investors under section 68. * the assessee is expected to establish to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer: * Proof of identity of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en there is credit in the books of account and such credit being loan or borrowing it has to pass the test of section 68 of the Act; (ii) Even if the loan or borrowing is squared up in the year, it could be tested for the purposes of section 68 of the Act. Obviously, in accommodation entries the lending or borrowing may be squared up and therefore, it is also caught in the net of verification of its veracity. The assessee's arguments and reliance on various judicial precedents will also be dealt in this order later in relevant paras. 53. Considering the above discussion on facts and law pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as discussed (supra), action of the AO on this count is sustained and the order of the Ld. CIT (A) is set-aside, as the same is silent on same and simply relied on the technicalities of the matter. Whereas, in such type of the cases, considering the cotemporary situation, the Hon'ble Courts also emphasised on the principle of Substance over Form in their decisions. The entities involved in the malpractice of providing accommodation entry and beneficiary entities can't simply come out of the glitches of the law, in the guise of some te....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat are part of the same group, will be totally or partly ignored as a device or a conduit (in the pejorative sense). [Para 67]" 54. Courts have evolved doctrines like piercing the corporate veil, substance over form etc. enabling taxation of underlying assets in cases of fraud, sham, tax avoidant, etc. However, genuine strategic tax planning is not ruled out. Lifting the corporate veil doctrine can, therefore, be applied in tax matters even in the absence of any statutory authorisation to that effect. 55. In view of the above the present Bench do have any hesitation in holding that on merits the assessee has miserably failed to establish the essential three ingredients as prescribed in section 68 of the Act and dully discussed and confirmed by the various Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court as discussed (supra). As far as the finding of the Ld. CIT (A) that the assessment of the assessee should have been carried out as per the provisions of section 153C of the Act, We have gone through the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and facts of the case alongwith order of the AO. It is observed that the finding of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous as the case of the assessee fals....