AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....93,42,890/ against the declared loss of INR 61,45,041/- by making various additions/disallowances. 3. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 16.01.2025, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal :- 1. "On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,24,34,000/- made on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the 1.T. Act, 1961 accruing to the assessee due to unaccounted cash deposited by it in its bank account. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT(A) while allowing relief to the assessee is correct in placing reliance on the cash flow statement and cash book furnished by the assessee whereas it can be seen from the cash flow statement that, the assessee through the cash withdrawals had artificially augmented cash in hand as no rationale could be found in continuous withdrawals of cash by the assessee despite it having no need to do so. 3. On facts and circumstances of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut of which 2,24,34,000/- were deposited in SBN during the period of demonetization. He submits that books of accounts of the assessee are duly audited, and no defect was pointed out by AO. Ld. AR submits that monthly cash flow statement was also submitted before the AO in support of the cash balance available. Regarding bank withdrawals, it is submitted that assessee was in the process of developing a new real estate project however, the same could not be started and thus, the cash withdrawal remained with the assessee. He further submits that all the details alongwith cash book etc. were submitted before the AO and Ld. CIT(A) after considering these facts, has deleted the additions. He thus prayed for the confirmation of the order of ld. CIT(A). 8. Heard the contentions of both parties and perused the material available on record. Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition made a detailed discussion on this issue in para 5.1.1 to 5.1.6 of the order which is reproduced as under :- 5. CIT(A)'s Decision: 5.1. Ground of Appeal 1 to 4: 5.1.1 The appellant's given written submissions, statement of facts and grounds of appeal have been carefully perused. Vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... displayed all around the city as 'Annexure B'. ● Copy of Invoice for services rendered along with the letter of appointment defining the scope of work to be done by consultants and engineers as 'Annexure C1 & C2'. ● Copy of write up for advertising the upcoming project as 'Annexure D'. WHY CASH WITHDRAWAN WAS DEPOSITED BACK IN FY 2016-17: When demonetization was announced on 08-11-2016, the assessee was given a small window of 2 months (from 09-11-2016 to 30-12-2016) to deposit back the cash. The assessee very quickly deposited back the cash on 2 dates immediately, as it was not permitted under law to use the old currency. Since the assessee did not take much time to deposit the cash back, it should not be presumed that the assessee generated such cash deposited back into the bank through dubious sources such as fake sales/cash receipt entries obtained from the market etc. after the date of demonetization. There is not a single entry like this In the books of accounts, as It can be verified from the cash book being submitted. Thereafter, the real estate market was completely devastated due to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "SECTION 69A. Unexplained money, etc. [Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing Officer], satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year." 5.1.6 From the above it is clear that where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AO and results declared were accepted. When the assessee has submitted complete details and thus discharges its onus, whereas no contrary material whatsoever was brought on record by the AO to disprove the details filed by the assessee. At this juncture, provision as contained in section 69A is reproduced as under: 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. 10. From the perusal of the provisions of section 69A of the Act it is very clear that assessing officer can make addition u/s 69A only under following circumstances, i.e. (i) the assessee is foun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 43CA of the Act. 15. Before us, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue supported the orders of the AO and submits that the difference was based on the valuation done by DVO and the same being 11.49% of actual sale consideration, therefore, AO has rightly made the additions which deserves to be upheld. 16. On the other hand, Ld. AR for the assessee placed reliance on the judgement of Ld. CIT(A) and requested for the confirmation of the same. 17. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is seen during the year assessee has sold total 17 properties out of which difference of more than 10% between the valuation done by stamp value authorities and declared sale consideration was in respect of only 07 properties and remaining 10 properties, the difference is less than 10%. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition to the extent of difference being excess of 10% which comes to INR 19,82,471/- and deleted the balance addition of INR 6,68,650/- which is less than 10%. As per section 43CA difference to the extent of 10% is allowable. By Finance Act, 2018, the first proviso to Section 43CA(1) was inserted, and this proviso provided that "where the value adopted or a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TA.NO. 3148/MUM/2022 for A.Y. 2018-19 has held that this amendment is curative in nature and this applicable retrospectively. The relevant observations of the coordinate bench are as under: 8. Considered the submissions made by the Ld. DR and material placed on record, we observe from the record that the difference between stamp duty value and agreement value having a difference of 4.88% only. We further observe from the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee that assessee has made a plea referring to Finance Act, 2018, which has made an amendment in section with effect from 01.04.2019, the value adopted or assessed by stamp duty authority does not exceed 105% of the consideration received as a result of transfer then it is deemed to be full value of consideration. As per the ground raised, we observe that assessee has claimed that the amendment made to section 43CA are retrospective in nature. On similar proposition, the Coordinate Bench in the case of the Shri Harish H Gandhi v. ACIT [(2022) (6) TMI 1277 - ITAT Mumbai] adjudicated that the amendment made to section 43CA is retrospective in nature in consonance with the amendments made to section 51C of the Act, for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e are inclined to allow the ground raised by the assessee. 22. In view of these facts, and we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the safe harbour limits as provided in section 43CA has allowed the partial relief to the assessee and accordingly the same is hereby upheld. Ground of appeal No. 4 of the revenue is dismissed. 23. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26.09.2025. ============= Document 1 LISTTIMES SQUARE. DEBRADON AMOUNT AMOUNT ASSETS PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT FIXED ASSETS [AS PER ANNEXURE A]] 34432774.86 [AS PER ANNEXURE /E] 54082187.34 SEGUBED LOAN CURRENTASSETS TATA CAPITALAVC 630149.11 CLOSING STOCK 49702307.00 RDB FINANCIAL SERVICES 22500000.00 [AS CERTIFIED BY PARTNERS] ; HDFC LTD 18000000.00, CASH IN HAND AXIS BANK 2101284:16 IDBI BANK 2427220.00 UNSECURED LOAN HDFC BANK 50000.00 [AS PER ANNEXURE B) 9050000.00 KOTAK MAHINDRA 100000.00 CURRENT LIABILITIES & PROVISIONS LOANS & ADVANCES SUNDRY CREDITORS 1748396.48 CHEQUES IN HAND 2250000.00 "(AS PER ANNEXURE C) ADVANCE TAX 3000000.00 ADVANCE- SHOPS UNITS 21522350.....