2025 (12) TMI 188

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- u/s,69C of the Act being unexplained expenditure without considering the incriminating documents found & seized during search proceedings & statement of the Shri Murlidhar Trivedi recorded during search proceedings, also, the Ld.CIT(A) has not appreciated the meticulous findings of the 3) In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 35,01,500/- u/s.696 of the Act being unexplained investment without considering the incriminating documents found & seized during search proceedings & statement of the Shri Murlidhar Trivedi recorded during search proceedings, also, the Ld.CIT(A) has not appreciated the meticulous findings of the AO." 4) The Revenue craves leave to add/alter/armed and/on substitute any or all of the grounds of appeal."" 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Abhipushp Properties Pvt. Ltd., filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 declaring NIL income, which was later subjected to assessment under section 153A of the Act pursuant to a search action under section 132 of the Act conducte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eals) then observed that the factual assumption forming the basis of reopening was incorrect, because the assessee had not purchased a constructed villa as alleged; rather, the purchase deed dated 04.08.2016 clearly showed that the assessee had only purchased an open plot of land, and the subsequent sale deed dated 22.01.2021 showed that the construction on the plot was carried out entirely by NODPL at its own cost, and that the buyers made payments for construction directly to NODPL, not to the assessee. Thus, the assessee neither incurred construction cost nor received any construction-related consideration, making the allegation of on-money factually improbable. The CIT(Appeals) further held that the additions made on the strength of an unsigned Excel sheet seized from a third party without any corroborative material had no evidentiary value, relying on several authoritative decisions including the Gujarat High Court in PCIT v. Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia and Bharat A. Mehta, where it was held that third-party digital data or loose sheets cannot be used against an assessee in the absence of independent evidence or cross-examination. The CIT(Appeals) also noted that the Assessing O....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1(1)(i) namely, the Principal Commissioner / Principal Director/Commissioner/Director shall be treated as valid, provided the three-year time limit fell within the extended period covered by TOLA. The High Court categorically rejected the argument that sanction of the Principal Chief Commissioner was mandatory in such cases and held that the test for determining the competent authority under section 151 is to examine whether the three-year time limit from the end of the relevant assessment year fell between 20.03.2020 and 31.03.2021; if so, then the approval under section 151(i) is sufficient in law. In the present case, the assessee's additional grounds are identical to the contentions rejected by the Hon'ble High Court. Since the facts of the instant case also fall within the framework explained in Dhanraj Govindram Kella (supra), and since the approval granted by the authority under section 151(1)(i) squarely satisfies the legal requirements as interpreted by the High Court, the additional grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the additional grounds of appeal sought to be raised by the assessee are rejected and stand dismissed. 8. On Merits, we have....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cogent evidence demonstrating actual payment. The Ahmedabad Tribunal has applied these binding principles consistently, such as in Kiritkumar Champaklal Shah v. ITO (2025 TaxPub (DT) 331, Ahd- Trib), specifically holding that mere reliance on Excel-sheet data found during third-party search and on the builder's admission before the Settlement Commission is insufficient to sustain additions without corroboration and without cross-examination. In the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central vs. Mahalaxmi Infracontract Ltd. [2025] 173 taxmann.com 399 (Ahmedabad - Trib.), the Ahmedabad ITAT held that where Assessing Officer made addition under section 69C of the Act on ground that assessee had paid interest in cash to a third-party, since said addition was made solely on basis of unsigned Excel sheets recovered from premises of third party, without any further corroborative evidence, same was to be deleted. In the case of Pradeep Amrutlal Runwal [2014] 47 taxmann.com 293/149 ITD 548 (Pune - Trib.), the IT AT held that where the Assessing Officer made additions in the case of the assessee on the basis of notings in loose papers found during the search proceedings in case of th....