TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 1613
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ircumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,31,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the I.T. Act ignoring the fact that the addition was made on the basis of incriminating documents in the form of notarized agreement found and impounded during the course of survey proceedings and also considering the fact that the assessee had made part payments totaling to Rs. 28 lakhs through banking channel and recorded the same in his books of accounts. (3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that though the assessee has denied to have made any such investment, as per the term and conditions mentioned in the notarized agreement, it has been clearly stated that the assessee has made payment of Rs. 6,31,50,000/- in pieces through bank transfers to the bank account of the first party of the agreement, being his contribution towards the work order, and that too before the execution of the agreement and therefore, there cannot be a case of coercion for signing such agreement as it only suits the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....28.03.2018, declaring total income of Rs. 37,33,440/- and agriculture income of Rs. 2,55,360/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act, 1961, accepting the returned income. Thereafter, the assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act, on 10.12.2019 accepting the returned income. In assessee's case, a Survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on 14.10.2020, at the premise of M/s Bajaj Scrap Traders, Prop. Shri Dharmesh Bharatbhai Thakkar. During the course of survey proceedings, various incriminating documents were found and impounded. On verification of backup of mobile of Shri Dharmesh Bharatbhai Thakkar, a notarized agreement dated 21.12.2019, has been found and it was noticed by Assessing Officer that total investments of Rs. 6,31,50,000/- was executed through the said agreement. The assessee's case was reopened after taking-approval from higher authorities and a notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2021. In response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee has filed his return of income on 23.04.2021, declaring total income of Rs. 37,33,440/- and agriculture income of Rs. 2,55,360/-. A qu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k order as mentioned in the agreement and stated that he has only made payment of Rs. 26,50,000/- during FY. 2016-17 Jatingiri Kanchangiri Goswami. However, reading of the agreement, it is clearly evident that all parties have made huge investments related to the work order. As per the agreement, Shri Dharmeshbhai Bharatbhai Thakkar has made investment of Rs. 6,31,50,000/-. The facts of the agreements are stated by Assessing Officer in the assessment order vide page nos. 9 to 10 of assessment order. 8. During post survey verification, assessee Shri Dharmeshbhai Thakkar has been confronted regarding the transactions and he has admitted about the investment of Rs. 26,50,000/- only which arc accounted in the books of accounts of the assessee. Income Tax Returns of the assessee has been verified by the assessing officer and their particulars of returns of income are as under: Name Business Income Other Source Income Gross Total Income Dharmesh Bharatbhai Thakkar 2013-14 1385027 328247 1713274 2014-15 2061720 357844 2376649 2015-16 2903474 418694 3245798 2016-17 4417087 479089 48....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... agreement on whatsapp of the assessee and telephonically continuously kept on threatening the assessee with dire consequences including loss of life, harm in taxation departments if he persisted with his recovery. He went into depression after the incidence. After partial recovery he made an affidavit to restore the correct facts and thereafter filed complaints in Navsari Police Station. However as the culprits had a stronghold with the police department the assessee plea was unheard. Thereafter aggrieved and feeling helpless the assessee filed a complaint with the PMO as well as the MHA for taking actions against the culprits as a measure of last resort. The complaints were filed on 28.09.2020 & 06.10.2020. The PMO/MHA directed the complaint to the chief secretary, govt. of union territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and sought report on 03.10.2020. The complaint after travelling from chief secretary, govt. of union territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli to SPO office/DNH to office of sub divisional police officer and then at last landed in silvasa police station on 20.10.2020. On the same day police called the assessee and recorded his statement. During the course of the statement as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....observed that assessee has entered into an agreement which is dragged into litigation by the assessee before the police authorities which was not a justifiable reasons, therefore assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 6,31,50,000/- by invoking the provisions of section 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 11. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has deleted the addition made by Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT (A) observed that investment of Rs. 6,03,50,000/- alleged to have been made by the assessee, has not been proved. The said investment cannot be taxed merely on the basis of the agreement found without there being any statements from the recipients of the money or without corroboration with the banking transactions, showing flow of funds from the assessee to the other parties. Hence, ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 12. Learned DR for the Revenue, argued that during the course of survey proceedings, various incriminating documents were found and impounded and on verification of the same, it was noted by the assessing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made the impugned addition. Hence, second inning should not be given to the assessing officer, to examine the said agreement again. This way, ld. Counsel contended that ld. CIT (A) has passed the speaking and detailed order, considering all documents, hence the same may be upheld. 16. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT (A) and other material brought on record. The Ld. CIT (A) observed from the assessment order, that the addition has been made only on the basis of the notarized agreement found in the mobile phone of the assessee. The assessee has denied, having made the investment over and above Rs. 28,00,000/- during the survey proceedings. This being the case, the DDIT/AO should have investigated the related facts as mentioned in the agreement to take the case to its logical, conclusion. As per the agreement, the assessee has paid the amount of Rs. 6,31,50,000/-, out of which Rs. 28,00,000/- is admitted by the assessee. The balance Rs. 6,03,50,000/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g flow of funds from the assessee to the other parties. 18. As regards the admitted portion, of Rs. 28,00,000/- is concerned, the ld. CIT (A) noted that the same is reflected in the books of the assessee in the name of Mr. Jatin K. Goswami as on. 31.03.2017 Rs. 26,50,000/- and in the name of Mr. Suresh R. Thorat as on 31.03,2017, and Rs. 1,50,000/-. Thus, the unexplained investment to the tune of Rs. 6,03,50,000/- in the business by the assessee is not proved by AO, and as regards Rs. 28,00,000/- the sources are proved which is evident from the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. Accordingly, the addition made u/s 69 of the Act amounting to Rs. 6,31,50,000/- was deleted by ld. CIT(A). 19. We also find merit in the submission of ld. Counsel to the effect that matter should not be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the agreement afresh. We have gone through the assessment order and observed that entire agreement has been reproduced by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order, and assessing officer has considered and analyzed the agreement, moreover, based on the said agreement, the assessing officer made th....