TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 664
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....garwal, sons of Vishwambhar Dayal, against the order of ld. CIT(A), Kapur - 4 dated 09.04.2025 for AY 2015-16. Both the assessees have filed the cross objections against the appeals filed by the Revenue. 3. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. We take up ITA No.330/Agr/2025 filed by the assessee, Sh. Vishwambhar Dayal Agarwal as lead case. 4. Brief facts of the case are, the substantive addition had been made in respect of "jewellery" found from the residence and lockers of the joint family, during the course of search conducted on assessee's residential premises on 15.10.2024 and addition made on the basis of document found from the premises of the company and the cash found from the residential premises of the directors during the course of search. The protective additions have been made by the Assessing Officer in hands of two sons of assessee, namely, Sh. Mayank Agarwal and Sh. Puneet Aggarwal in respect of jewellery found from the residential premises and from the lockers of the family. Thus, since common facts are involved, for the sake of clarity, the common order i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich have been treated as "unexplained income", accordingly, assessed as income from undisclosed sources. 9. Similarly, the jewellery was found during the course of search to the tune of Rs. 1,65,43,114/- and out of which, during the course of search, the jewellery worth Rs. 99,31,727/- was offered as undisclosed investment and the same was added in the hands of Sh. V.D. Agarwal on substantive basis and on protective basis in the hands of Sh. Puneet Agarwal and Sh. Mayank Agarwal. 10. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), Kanpur and detailed submissions were made by the assessee, which have been reproduced in the impugned order at page 10 to 57 and the ld. CIT(A) has discussed each and every issue from pages 58 onwards and observed as under :- a). Regarding the unexplained jewellery of Rs. 99,31,727/-, for which, the addition have been made in the hands of Shri V.D.Agarwal on substantive basis, it observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that jewellery belongs to the family as a whole and out of the same jewellery had been declared under the VDIS-97 and later on, some jewellery was purchased in same year and altered as well. On basis on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r House, Agra. Further, he held that the assessee was entitled to benefit of CBDT Instruction No.1916, dated 11.05.1994 and on the basis of documentary evidences furnished, the addition of Rs. 99,31,729/- was deleted, as made on substantive basis in the hands of Sh. V.D. Agarwal. e). With regard to the cash of Rs.42 lacs, the issue has been analyzed by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 6.5/ page 64 of the order and he held that the assessee has failed to explain that the cash was brought from site offices to the residence for security reasons and since the assessee could not satisfactorily explain and support its contention with documentary evidences, the said addition was sustained by the CIT(A). f). With regard to the addition of Rs. 11,03,17,000/- on the basis of loose documents found from the premises of company as advances for land in respect of assessee and his two sons, for which, the amount of Rs. 36,89,24,000/- was surrendered in the following manner :- Name of the Person Advance(s) Page No. of Annexure A22 Amount of unaccounted surrender Shri Puneet Agarwal 44 10,66,01,000/- Sh. Mayan Agarwal 45 15,20,06,000/- Shri Vishwambhar Dayal Ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has to be computed from the date of receipt of books of accounts or documents by the AO of the non-searched person and in the present case, the order u/s 127 of the Income Tax Act was passed on 20.07.2015 and the earliest date on which, the AO could have received the documents seized during search conducted on 17.10.2014 in the case of company and, thus, the Assessment year 2016-17, would be an year of search in the case of appellant and, thus, the assessment for the Asstt. Year 2015-16 should have been made u/s 153C. It was further stated by the CIT(A) at page 74 that neither any notice u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act have been issued nor any satisfaction has been contemplated in section 153C of the Income Tax Act 1961 have been issued and nor any satisfaction as contemplated in section 153C of the Act has been recorded and, thus, the assessment have been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act is bad in law. Further, it was stated by the CIT(A) that the addition have been made in the hands of assessee on the basis of documents seized from the premises of offices of three companies and, therefore, it was held that the present assessment is unsustainable in law, illegal, void ab- initio an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing, Agra, where search was started on 15.10.2014 and it was concluded on 16.10.2014, copy of the Panchnamas is placed at pages 23 to 26 of the 'Paper Book'. b). Common Panchnama of 'residential premises' bearing House No. No. 16A, Prabhu Nagar, Jaipur Housing, Agra, where the panchnama was drawn in the name of 'Sh. Vishambhar Dayal and his sons', as per copy of the panchnama placed at pages 27 to 30 of the Paper Book. The search was conducted on 15.10.2014 and the search was concluded on 15.10.2014. c). The common Panchnama in the names of 'Pushpanjali Construction Co. Ltd.' and Other group of companies was also drawn and in that case, the search was conducted on 15.10.2014 and search was concluded on 17.10.2014. Copy of the Panchnama has been placed in the Paper Book at pages 31 to 38. ii. The Assessing Officer had made three additions while framing the assessment in the case of Sh. Vishambhar Dayal Agarwal and that is the lead case, being head of the family as under:- S. No. Particular Addition Relevant Page of the Assessment order 1. Addition on account of Voluntary surrender during the course of searc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... i). The first ground of appeal relates to 'mechanical approval' as granted by the JCIT, (Central), Range, Kanpur u/s 153D and, therefore, the assessment proceedings in this case are void ab-intio and liable to be quashed. ii). It is submitted, that the Assessing Officer of the assessee is based at Agra and the JCIT (Central ) Range is from Kanpur, which is more than 400 KMs away. Letter of the Assessing Officer for the permission was sent by AO by way of letter, dated 28.12.2016 and that approval was sought in respect of number of assessees, as is evident from pages 14 to 16 of the order of CIT(A) and approval were sought for in 98 cases by the AO and the approval was granted on the same day i.e. on 28.12.2016 and the assessment order was passed by the Assessing officer on 28.12.2016 itself. Thus, the finding of CIT(A) in dismissing this ground of appeal as per para 6.23, page 83 of the order is void ab-initio. Further, by way of one letter alone, the approval has been granted in large number of cases besides the group cases of the assessee and this is not permitted based on the number of case laws and for that, the reliance is being placed on the judgmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e closing cash in hand was Rs. 65,29,177/- in the books of the company namely 'Pushpanjali Hospital & Research Centre. He also clarified that out of above part of the cash was deposited to the tune of Rs. 23.24 lakhs in the Bank account as per page 43 of the Paper Book and same was stated by Accountant as per page 51 of the Paper Book. The assessee also stated during search that the cash belongs to various companies of the group, which had been part of the cash lying at home. Please refer to statement of assessee at page 43, in answer to Question No. 12. v). Similarly, there was a statement of one Sh. Sunil Kumar Mishra, Accountant of the group during search on 15.10.2014, copy has been placed at pages 46 to 52 of the 'Paper Book' and at page 51, he has categorically stated about the closing balance of cash as Rs. 67,68,770/ as per page 51 of the paper book. He is also stated that for the security reasons, the cash was set at Home of the directors and he also stated, some cash was deposited to the tune of Rs. 23.24 lakhs on 15.10.2014 and, thus, the cash as found is totally explained. vi). Thus, from the above said facts, it is very clear that nothing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....search operation do not serve any useful purpose. Following further points needs to brought in your consideration :- a). There is a detailed statement of the assessee at the residence on 15.10.2014, about the cash in hands as per books of accounts of the company and reason of keeping the cash at home was explained both by the assessee and the Accountant as stated above. b). Even, there is a statement of the Accountant as stated above and the cash in hand as stated by the director and Accountant, there was more than sufficient cash in hand as per books of accounts of the group companies. c). Relevant extract of the cash book was also filed during the course of assessment proceedings for the year under consideration and enclosed at pages 126 to 127 of the Paper Book. d). No discrepancy in such cash book was found, which has been seized during the course of search or any omission or error have been noticed therein. e). All the entries are as per regular books of accounts and on the basis of which, final accounts have been drawn and assessment framed without any adverse conclusion. Copy of the assessment is being filed. f). The cash....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st dismissed the ground of appeal of the assessee without assigning any reason in a summary manner and it is contrary to the well settled law. Further, we rely on the judgment of Chandigarh Bench of the ITAT in the case of Atop Fastners Pvt. Ltd., copy placed at pages 173 to 256 of the Judgement Set, wherein, surrender was made and it was retracted only during the course of assessment proceedings when, it was noticed that the assessee had not declared the surrendered income and the Hon'ble Bench, after discussing the plethora of case laws and after analyzing number of judgments starting from page 203 of the Judgement Set have held that only on the basis of statement, no addition could be made. Reliance is being placed in the observation from the judgment at page 204, wherein, it has been held that, it was obligatory on the part of the Assessing Officer to substantially corroborate the same by other independent and cogent evidences in support of the facts so claimed by him. n). Similarly, number of case laws have been discussed at page 207 onwards and particularly, the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala &Anr, r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arch Investigation and i.e. no cheques were presented in our bank account for encashment. iii). Further, it is submitted that as per the judgment of 'Apex Court' in the case of 'Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala' as cited above, it has been held that admission is not conclusive and the person, who made the admission can say it to be incorrect. iv) We have stated during the course of search, repeatedly that for safety purpose, the cash in hand of different companies is kept at home and the same was confirmed by both the Accountant and assessee that the cash in hands of the group companies was lying at home and in the case of company, the assessment has been framed without drawing any adverse inference against the assessee. Further, the books of accounts of the company have not been rejected u/s 145(3) and, thus, the above are documentary evidences cannot be brushed aside and, thus, from the above, we had demonstrated that the surrender was made on the basis of incorrect facts as the books of accounts of the said company were seized, where there is sufficient cash in hand as stated by the assessee and the accounting during search.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no prejudice caused to the assessee. Therefore, he relied on the findings of Ld CIT(A). 17. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. With regard to ground no.1 raised by the assessee on the issue of approval u/s 153D of the Act, we observed that the AO had taken common approval as under: 18. We observe that Assessing Officer of the assessee is based at Agra and the JCIT (Central), Range is from Kanpur, which is more than 400 KMs away. Further we observe that the letter of the Assessing Officer for the permission was sent by AO by way of letter, dated 28.12.2016 and that approval was sought in respect of number of assessees and approval was sought for in 98 cases by the AO and the approval was granted on the same day i.e. on 28.12.2016 and the assessment order was passed by the Assessing officer on 28.12.2016 itself. We observe that it is not possible to get the permissions and approval on the same date. Thus, we observe that the finding of CIT(A) in dismissing this ground of appeal as per para 6.23, page 83 of the order is void ab-initio. Further, by way of one letter alone, the approval has been granted in large number of cases besides the group cases....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant assessment year or years), referred to in Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153A. The proviso to Section 153A further provides for assessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years (and for the relevant assessment year or years). The careful and conjoint reading of Section 153A(1) and Section 153D leave no room for doubt that approval with respect to "each assessment year" is to be obtained by the Assessing Officer on the draft assessment order before passing the assessment orders under Section 153A. 20. We further find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (supra) has decided the similar legal issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court are reproduced as under :- "15. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Anuj Bansal (supra), whereby, it was reiterated that the exercise of powers under Section 153D cannot be done mechanically. Thus, the salient aspect which emerges from the abovementioned decisions is that grant of approval under Section 153D of the Act cannot be merely ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ifies that a single approval has been granted for AYs 2011-12 to 2017-18 in the case of the assessee. The said order also fails to make any mention of the fact that the draft assessment orders were perused at all, much less perusal of the same with an independent application of mind. Also, we cannot lose sight of the fact that in the instant case, the concerned authority has granted approval for 43 cases in a single day which is evident from the findings of the ITAT, succinctly encapsulated in the order extracted above. 18. Therefore, under the facts of the present case, considering the foregoing discussion and the enunciation of law settled through This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2024 at 21:34:51 judicial pronouncements discussed hereinabove, we are unable to find any substantial question of law which would merit our consideration." 21. We also find that ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of M/s Millenium Vinimay (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, (supra) has dealt the similar legal issue and decided the same....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nue submitted that the question of legality of the approval was raised by the assessee for the first time before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the Additional CIT had granted the approval. The Tribunal committed an error in holding that the same is invalid. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the both sides and having perused the documents on record, we have no hesitation in upholding the decision of the Tribunal. The Additional CIT while granting an approval for passing the order of assessment, had made following remarks : "To, The DCIT(OSD)1, Mumbai Subject: Approval u/s 153D of draft order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A in the case of Smt. Shreelekha Nandan Damani for A.Y. 2007-08 reg. Ref: No. DCIT (OSD)1/ CR7/Appr/2010-11 dt. 31.12.2010 As per this office letter dated 20.12.2010, the Assessing Officers were asked to submit the draft orders for approval u/s 153D on or before 24.12.2010. However, this draft order has been submitted on 31.12.2010. Hence there is no much time left to analyze the issue of draft order on merit. Therefore, the draft order is being approved as it is submitted. Approval to the above said draft order is granted u/s 153D of the I. T. Act, 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch inexplicable approval lacks legitimacy. Consequently, the impugned assessments orders in the captioned appeals are non-est and a nullity and hence the same are quashed. 18. In view of prima facie merits found in the legal objections raised in the Addl. Grounds of the Assessees, we do not consider it expedient to look into the aspects on merits of additions/disallowance as the legal objections on sanction granted under Section 153D of the Act has been answered in favour of the Assessee. Thus the other Grounds raised in the Appeals of the Assessee in both the Appeals have rendered in- fructuous, which do not need any separate adjudication. 19. In the result, the Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA Nos. 294/Del/2022 and ITA No. 295/Del/2022 are allowed. 11. Upon considering the entire aspect of the matter, we find that the approval has been granted not separately for each assessment year for the assessee whereas the provision of Section 153D of the Act stipulates conditions that no order of assessment or reassessment shall be made by an Assessment Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in Clause (b) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted by the assessee that this cash belonged to the group companies, the same was confronted with the accountant of the companies, who had also confirmed the same. It was submitted that the cash was kept with the assessee for security reasons. We observed that while concluding the search in the case of group companies on 17.10.2014, the assessee had voluntarily (allegedly) agreed to declare the above said amount as his additional income, it is relevant to notice that the cash was found at the residence of the assessee and the search was concluded on 16.10.2014 without the above said addition while concluding the proceedings. No discussion was recorded with regard to the above cash. However, only while concluding the search proceedings in the case of group companies on 17.10.2014, a formal declaration (preprinted) was signed by the assessee with the agreement that he will declare the same as additional income, apparently it looks like the same was declared voluntarily. But the Ld DR could not substantiate the reason for making the assessee to agree the said cash as additional income of the assessee when the same issue was confronted to the accountant, who had submitted on oath that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1) That the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in passing the appeal order without appreciating the facts that the case has been decentralized and jurisdiction is with present AO i.e. ACIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), Agra and not with the AO of Central Circle, Agra at the time of passing appeal order. On PAN transfer history it is observed that the case has been decentralized way back in 2017. Thus, the order of the CIT(A) is without jurisdiction as CIT(A)-4, Kanpur does have jurisdiction over the cases of Central Circle/Range only. 2) That the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in passing the appeal order which is contradictory in itself as on the one hand it is held that the present assessment order is unsustainable in law, illegal, void ab- initio and liable to be quashed as the addition on the basis of loose sheet of paper found and seized was from the premises of other person viz., the office of companies and on the other hand the addition of Rs. 42,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash has been confirmed. 3) That the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,03,17,000/- by holding the assessee as 'other person' in this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 99,31,727/-completely ignoring the fact that the assessee has not substantiated his claim that the jewellery found and seized during the course of search was continuously held since 1997, and no Wealth Tax Returns were filed by the assessee from the year 1997 onwards. The assessee had only filed the Wealth Tax Return for AY 2014-15 belatedly on 31.03.2016, i.e., almost 18 months after the date of search, which casts serious doubts on the assessee's claim of continued possession of the jewellery since 1997. If the assessee had actually been in possession of the said jewellery since 1997, the same ought to have been consistently disclosed in the Wealth Tax Returns of subsequent years in which- assessee failed. 7) That the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 99,31,727/- made by the AO on account of unexplained jewellery without appreciating the fact that the documents filed by the assessee during the appellate proceedings were in the nature of additional evidence u/r 46A of the I.T. Rules. These were not confronted/ provided to the assessing officer for his verification/ comments. 8) That the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Circle, Agra at the time of passing the impugned order. He submitted that PAN transfer history clearly indicate that the case has been decentralized way back in 2017, therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) (impugned order) is without jurisdiction as ld. CIT(A)-4, Kanpur does have jurisdiction over the cases of Central Circle/Range. 29. On the other hand, Ld AR submitted as under: a). The first ground of appeal relates to the issue that the CIT(A)-4, Kanpur did not have the jurisdiction over the assessee in deciding the appeal and the facts are as under :- i). There was search and seizure operation on 15.10.2014 on the assessee. ii). The case was centralized on 20th of July, 2015 as per page-1 of the order of the Assessing Officer. iii). The assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer, Central Circle, Agra vide order, dated 28.12.2016. iv). The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) on 27.01.2017 v). The case was decentralized on 13.07.2017. vi). Regarding the jurisdiction issue, this ground is totally misplaced and without any basis and the contention of the department is that, perhaps the case should have bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only directed the assessee to proceed with appeal filed with CIT(A)-4, Kanpur, since the direction was decided by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC, Agra and, thus, based on the above documents, the ground no 1 raised by the department is deserves to be dismissed. 31. With regard to Ground No.2, ld. DR submitted that the addition is similar to assessee's Ground No.2, we observe that there is no prejudice caused to the Revenue, therefore, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 32. With regard to Ground Nos.3 & 4, ld. DR submitted that ld. CIT(A) has held that the assessment could be made u/s 153C instead of 143(3) of the Act on the basis that assessee is other person u/s 153C of the Act without considering the fact that in present case, assessee was also a searched person within the meaning of section 153A of the Act and also search was initiated simultaneously in the name of the assessee and group concerns, belongs to searched person i.e. assessee and not falls under the other person as interpreted by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he supported the findings of the Assessing Officer that the assessment has to be completed u/s 143(3) not u/s 153C of the Act. Further he sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n made by the assessee and finally, the addition was made on the basis of retracted statement as per page 16 of the order of AO. 37. The assessee during the course of hearing before the AO filed a letter, dated 15.11.2016, which copy has been placed at 'Paper Book' pages 69 to 72 and stated that there is no basis of making the addition on account of such dumb document and also before the Ld. CIT(A) on merits of the case from pages 29 to 31 of the order contending that such addition could not have been made, just on the basis of retracted statement, which is not justified and also our contention was that, since it was digital data, the compliance to section 65B of the I.T. Act 2002 does not appear to have been made and also in our submissions before the CIT(A), we raised a legal issue that addition on account of this so-called 'dumb document', if at all, could have been made u/s 153C and not in the order passed u/s 143(3) and the Ld. CIT(A), though, had not agreed the fact that this is a dumb document, for which, we are in our cross objection but the CIT(A) has allowed the relief on the legal issue, that such addition could not have been made in the order u/s 143(3). 38. First....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as per the judgments cited above at page 12 and such statements have no evidentiary value, particularly the retracted statement. xii). Though, we had given detailed submissions before the CIT(A) both on the issue of section 65B from pages 23 to 29 of the order of CIT(A) and also on merits, that no clinching evidence was found with respect to giving of any alleged advance in cash for the purchase of any plot and further no description of property, measurement or any other evidence have been found and, thus, it is a dumb document. xiii). The Ld. CIT(A) has in a summary manner without going through our submissions has given a finding after discussing the facts of the case from page 65 and given the finding against the assessee on merits in para 6.14 & 6.15 and has confirmed the addition only on the basis of statement of the assessee and we have demonstrated that, how, this paper cannot lead to admission on the part of the assessee and there is no name of the person to whom, the advances have been made and all columns are blank and there cannot be any payment to self and finding of CIT(A), that it is not dumb document is devoid of any valid consideration, specially, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has relied upon on various judgments of Delhi High Court and other judgements of the ITAT at page 74 of the order and the judgment of Sh. Anand Kumar Jain at page 76, to which, facts are 'para materia' with our case and at page 77, another judgment of Delhi Bench of the ITAT, has been relied upon, wherein, it has been held as under :- "In our considered opinion, when the case of assessee is covered under the provision of section 153 of the Act and if reliance is placed on the incriminating material found during the course of search of third-party, then provision of section 153C of the Act would be applicable and have to be adhered to. Thus, in the instant case, the Assessing Officer was required to first complete the proceedings under section 153A in hand, which were initiated by way of notice, dated 30.06.2014 and thereafter, he was a liberty to take action under section 153C of the Act for brining the material found from the premise of Sh. Ashok Chaudhri to tax in the hands of assessee." xix). In the said judgment, the judgement of Jurisdictional 'Delhi High Court' has been followed and many more cases at page 81 of the order, which are being r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee being separate person distinct from the companies, the AO should have initiated the proceedings based on the provisions contained in section 153C of the Act, as submitted before us, the documents are submitted in the subsequent year and the relevant search assessment for the purpose of section 153C falls not in the impugned assessment year. After considering the facts on record, we are inclined to accept the reasoned order of Ld CIT(A). In the result, ground nos.3 and 4 raised by the revenue are dismissed. 40. With regard to Ground No.5 on the issue of retraction by the assessee, ld. DR submitted that assessee has retracted only on 18.10.2016 i.e. after two years of completion of search and he submitted that the date of search was 15.10.2014. In this regard, he submitted that the retraction of surrender which if not made within reasonable time frame, cannot be considered as retraction. In this regard, he relied on the following decisions :- i) PCIT(C)-2 Delhi vs. Avinash Kumar Setia (ITA 935/ 2016) (Delhi) (HC) ii) CIT vs. MAC Public Charitable Trust (2022) 450 ITR 368 (Mad) (HC ) iii) Bachittar Singh vs. CIT 2010 (AIR 328ITR400)(P&H HC) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of filing the return of income. There are short coming in both sides, in our considered view, the issue under consideration is only for academic purpose considering the fact that the Ld CIT(A) had already treated the whole assessment as bad in law on the basis of jurisdictional ground, further, we have also allowed the ground raised by the assessee on the issue of approval granted u/s 153D is not proper. Therefore, we are partly allowing the ground raised by the Revenue on the aspect of retraction, which was made after two years, it was retracted only during the filing of the return of income. 44. With regard to ground Nos.6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 on the issue of deletion of addition on account of 'jewellery' as found during the course of search from house and locker, Ld DR submitted that ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition completely ignoring the fact that the assessee has not substantiated his claim that the jewellery found and seized during the course of search was continuously held since 1997 and no wealth-tax returns were filed by the assessee from the year 1997 onwards. Assessee had only filed wealth-tax return for AY 2014-15 belatedly on 31.03.2016 i.e. almost 18 months ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order. v). It is submitted that the same submissions were made before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of submissions starting from pages 46 to 51 of the order and the finding of CIT(A) on this issue starts from page 58 and the Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the statement recorded of the assessee at page 59 and as also the other documentary evidences, having been furnished and the retraction made by the assessee and given a finding at page 63 of the order, that the family is living jointly and addition had been made only on the basis of statement recorded during search is not proper since the Assessing Officer has failed to rebut the documentary evidences with cogent material. vi). Our reliance is on the finding given by the CIT(A) and, thus the CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the ground of appeal and, as such, the ground of appeal No. 7,8,9 & 10 in the appeal of the department deserves to be dismissed. vii). The Ground No. 11 has already been dealt in while dealing with the Ground No. 3 of the department appeal. 46. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the gold jewellery were found during the search and it valued Rs. 99,31,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the addition was made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of certain data found in the computer at the premises of the companies. In case, the Assessing Officer intend to use those data for the purpose of making addition either in the hands of the assessee or in the company's account, the relevant data has to be certified as per section 65B of the IT Act. In this case, it is not followed. Therefore, the submissions of the ld. DR are misplaced. Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 51. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being ITA No.337/Del/2025 is dismissed. 52. With regard to CO filed by the assessee, we have already held that the ground raised by the Revenue on the issue of documents found during the search as academic and the assessment itself is bad in law, we are inclined to dismiss the CO raised by the assessee. 53. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed. 54. In the Revenue's appeal in the cases of Shri Mayank Agarwal and Shri Puneet Agarwal (ITA No.336/Agr/2025 & 338/A....