TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,28,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained unsecured loan u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act by disregarding the evidence indicating that the loan was Channeled through shell companies M/s Wellworth Tradelink Pvt. Ltd and Desire Vincome Pvt. Ltd to introduce unaccounted money into the assessee's books of accounts. 2. The applicant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any of the ground of appeal during the course of appeal proceedings." 3.1 In ITA No. 666/JPR/2025, the Revenue has raised following:- "1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,28,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained unsecured loan u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act by disregarding the evidence indicating that the loan was channeled through shell companies M/s Wellworth Tradelink Pvt. Ltd and Desire Vincome Pvt. Ltd to introduce unaccounted money into the assessee's books of accounts. 2. The applicant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any of the ground of appeal during the cours....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive, however, in the interest of the justice and to avoid repetitive litigation, we are deciding the issue involved in both the cases on merit also and for this purpose we are first taking up the case of M/s Dhan Laxmi Enclaves Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 666/JPR/2025) as in this case the addition has been made on substantive basis. 6.1 The ld. CIT(A) has stated the relevant facts in his order at Page 37 and the same not controverted by both the parties. Therefore, for the sake of ready reference the facts narrated by CIT (A), is reproduced as under: - "The brief facts as per assessment order are that a search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") was carried out on 02-08-2017 at the various premises of Raju Sharma Group, Jaipur. Residential premises of Shri Raju Sharma, who is the key persons of this group was also covered. During the course of search & seizure operation copy of agreement dated 21.06.2013 executed between Shri Raju Sharma and Shri Gyan Charid Agarwal as a Director of the assessee company was found and seized as page No. 43 to 45 to Exhibit-11 of Annexure-AS. As noted by the ld. AO, the said documen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt to sales, which does not show that the transaction mentioned therein has actually been materialized or not, therefore in absence of proving this vital fact, no adverse interference can be taken in the hands of the assessee and no addition can be made solely on the basis of this agreement. Further that the seized document is only a purported agreement to sale and not the sales deed and as per this agreement the possession of the property was also not handed over to the party, therefore the captioned transaction does not come into the ambit of transfer of property, as defined in section 2(47)(v) of Income Tax Act. It is an admitted position of law that the agreement to sales is only a gist of terms &conditions, upon fulfillment of which the underlying transaction would be completed in future. The appellant has further contended that seized document is only a draft agreement to sale, which was never acted upon and shown amount was never received to assessee or company in which he is a director. This agreement to sale is neither signed by another party of the agreement nor by any witnesses, which show that this agreement to sale was never acted upon. As, this agreement was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to Ld. A.O. to make the inquiry regarding the ownership of the plots. For making such inquiry from the Shri Gyan Chand Agarwal (director of assessee company), the Ld. A.O. (as the AO of assessee and Shri Raju Sharma were same person) issued notice dated 28.02.2023 (Copy at PB Page 28-29), wherein the specific detail/documents regarding the ownership for the plot were sought from the assessee. The spot inquiries were also carried out by the Ld. A.O. The reply of the above-mentioned notice, along with requisite documents, was filed by Shri GyanChand Agarwal (director of assessee company)on 13.03.2023 (Copy at PB Page 30to 35). After considering the reply filed by the assessee and also on the basis of spot inquiry made by him the Ld. A.O. submitted the factual report of Hon'ble IBFS and the same is mentioned at para 5.1 (page 18) of order of Hon'ble IBFS. The relevant part of the same reads as "The inspector visited the site on 3.5.2023 and submitted his report wherein it is stated that the property (Plot No. E-702, E-703 and EC-101,Narayan Vihar Block-E, Village Asarpura, Tehsil-Sanganer, Jaipur) situated on Khasra No. 15 and 17/490 of land at Village Asarpura are still under posses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the order of Hon'ble IBS it is seen that the additions have been made in the order on the issues which are discussed in paragraphs 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of the order of the Hon'ble IBS and different issues having different amounts are discussed in these three paragraphs. Thus no addition has been made in the hands of Sh. Raju Sharma by the Hon'ble IBS on account of impugned above referred unaccounted cash of Rs. 3 Cr. given to the appellant company or to the director of the appellant company i.e. It has not been upheld that the unaccounted cash transaction took place in this regard. Further, the contention of the appellant that these plots were not owned by the director or company but these plots were owned by Khatedar of Narayan Vihar E Block has been found to be correct through the Inspector report as submitted during the proceedings before the Hon'ble Interim Board for Settlement. As the inspector gave the report that land was still under possession of land owners and they were running a marriage garden and dharamkanta. The relevant part of the order of Hon'ble Interim Board for Settlement is as under: "In respect of issue -1above, the PCIT vide letter dated 08.05.2023 h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... received Rs. 3,00,00,000/- in consideration of sale of impugned plots and supported the order of the AO and submitted that the addition deserves to be sustained. On the other hand, the ld AR submitted that the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition after considering the factual findings of Interim Board for Settlement (in short IBFS), factual report of inspector on ownership and possession of plots and rule 9 report of the PCIT submitted to IBFS in the case of Shri Raju Sharma, which has not been controverted by ld CIT DR. The ld. AR of the assessee relied on the submission filed before ld. CIT(A), which is available in the order of ld. CIT A) at page 27-37 of the order and also relied upon the finding of ld. CIT(A). 6.6 We have heard the rival contention of both the parties, perused the material available on record and also considered the facts of the case and findings of lower authorities. The notable fact of the case, on the basis of which the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition are that : - i) The seized agreement, relying on which the impugned addition was made, is not a sales deed and only agreement to sales, which does not show that the transaction mentioned therein has act....