TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 652
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was doubted and addition was made thus, the issues involved in both appeals are inter-linked, inter-connected. This fact has been admitted by both the parties during the course of hearing before us, therefore, both crossappeal filed by the Revenue and the assessee are decided by a common order. ITA No. 4115/Del/2025 (Revenue's Appeal) [AY 2019-20] 3. First, we are taking the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No. 4115/Del/2025. 4. In all the grounds of appeal, the revenue has challenged the action of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 40,39,05,000/- made by AO towards the advances received on the sale of immovable assets owned by the assessee from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. treating the same as unexplained cash credits. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the assessment and appellate order, it is seen that on the issue of receipts from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd., all the observations and allegations made by AO are same as were made in the case of M/s Allure Developers Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Year 2020-21 & Others in ITA No. 3559/Del/2025 & Others vide order dated 26.11.2025. The rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Ltd. during various financial years which is one of the group company of Reliance group. The AO observed that M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. is a shell company as per the Press Release dated 08.06.2018 by Ministry of Finance. The AO has accepted part loans as genuine and made the addition of 17,74,00,000/- by doubting the source of this amount in the hands of the lender company M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. 23. It is the contention of the assessee that no incriminating document whatsoever was found / seized during the course of search from the possession of the assessee or any of the directors or its employees. As the assessee no document is referred / relied upon by the AO for making the additions. He solely placed reliance on the statements of the director of assessee company and one of the employees of Ace group and also placed heavy reliance on the statements of one Shri Ashish Begwani, recorded during the search in his case in the year 2016-17 wherein he had admitted engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries. However, such statements were recorded three-four years back where transactions under dispute before us were carried out in the year 2019-2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... advanced to the appellant were ingenuine. Such documentary evidence is conspicuously absent in the assessment order despite the fact that both the assessee group and M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. were searched. It is pertinent to mention here that the standalone statement relied upon by the Assessing Officer cannot itself be considered as sufficient evidence to reach the conclusion as drawn by the AO in the assessment order, more so, for the reason that the said statements were equally rebutted by the other director of the appellant company. It is a well-settled principle of law that a statement unsupported by corroborative documentary evidence lacks evidentiary value. In the present case, the AO has made the addition solely based on the statement of Sh. Vishal Kumar without producing any documentary evidence to substantiate the claim that cash was exchanged against the loans raised whereas, the director of the company had refuted the said allegation. On the above issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) vs. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal reported at [2024] 161 taxmann.com 813 (SC) has held as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reeleathers reported at [2022] 143 taxmann.com 435 (Calcutta) it has been held as under: It was noted that show-cause notice issued on assessee was only in respect of one lender company, namely, FGD - Assessee provided various documents in form of PAN card, income-tax acknowledgement, copy of bank statement, certification of incorporation, master data from register of companies, certificate of incorporation and annual account to prove FD's identity and creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction - However, Assessing Officer by relying on statement of one AKA, who was alleged operator of such bogus companies, brushed aside these documents on mere ground that they did not absolve assessee from his responsibility of proving nature of transaction -It was noted that statement of AKA was not recorded in presence of assessee nor an opportunity of cross-examination was provided to it - Whether where there was no evidence brought on record by Assessing Officer to connect statement of AKA with loan transaction of assessee, said statement was of little avail and could not be basis of allegations - Held, yes - Whether, further, since assessee had discharged its initial burden ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has relied upon statement of Nishant Chajjar and Vishal Kumar in the assessment order whereas, the statements of Prakash Kumar Jha and complete statement of Pratap Singh Rathi have not been discussed in the assessment order. It is also seen that the Investigation on the basis of source to source has been applied only to the funds received from Teesta Retails Pvt. Ltd. and HFCL but no such source-to-source investigation has been conducted with respect to the funds other than those received from Teesta Retails Pvt. Ltd. On the issue of cherry picking of statements/evidences, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA & ORS. reported at 2022 (8) TMI 423 - SUPREME COURT has held as under: "SEBI's attempt to cherry-pick the documents it proposes to disclose - There is a dispute about the fact that certain excerpts of the opinion of Justice (Retd.) B. N Srikrishna, were disclosed to the appellant herein. It is the allegation of the appellant that while the parts which were disclosed, vaguely point to the culpability of the appellant, SEBI is refusing to divulge the information which exonerate it. Suc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MANGALORE (VICE VERSA) reported at 2022(9) TMI 1480 - ITAT BANGALORE has held as under: The AO has taken notice of this statement. However, he intentionally ignored it as it was in favour of the assessee. The A.O. could not do cherry picking, if the Ld. AO considered the statement of Shri B. Kunhi where he has stated that payment of speed money was at Rs. 35 per M.T., there could be no addition on this count. In view of the above discussion and stated judicial pronouncements, it is apparent that the statements reproduced by the AO without any corroborative evidence cannot be a sole basis for making addition in the case of the assessee. This is all the more true because the AO has himself proceeded to enquire into the source of source of the loans and gave relief to the extent of approximately Rs. 140 crores(Rs. 9 crore in the present case) in the whole ACE Group from the total loans received from M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. by ascribing the same to be from genuine sources. Still, it shall be important to examine the other relevant issues in the case in consequence to which enquiry was initiated with M/s. Hallow Securitie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e satisfactorily the source in the hands of the creditor, would not apply if the creditor is a well-regulated entity, i.e., it is a Venture Capital Fund, Venture Capital Company registered with SEBI. This amendment has taken effect from 1^st April, 2023 and accordingly applies in relation to the assessment year 2023-24 and subsequent assessment years. The year before us is AY 2020-21 thus this amendment is not applicable, yet the assessee has been able to establish the same as per the table reproduced herein above. 30. As observed above, the requirement of explaining 'Source' of 'Source' in respect of loans is applicable from A.Y. 2023-24 and subsequent years. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgement of coordinate bench of Delhi ITAT in the case of M/s Mall Hotels Ltd. Vs. CIT in ITA No. 2688/DEL/2014 dated 31.05.2022. 31. Further the Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT v Smt. Prem Anand in ITA No. 3514/Del/2014 vide order dated 13.04.2017 held that amendment made in section 68 of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2013 empowers the A.O. to examine source of source in case of share application money / share capital / share premium from 01.04.2013 and this amendmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which are reproduced as under: "From the above press release, following conclusions can be drawn: a. The red flagged companies which had not filed returns for last 2 years were deregistered from the ROC. b. Directors of those companies which had not filed annual returns were disqualified. c. The struck-off companies were restricted from using their bank accounts. d. Genuine corporates were given benefit of condonation of delay scheme for filing the returns. In view of the above, it was felt necessary to make enquiries both with Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. and SFIO (the Nodal Authority maintaining the database) to know, if any, proceedings were pending with respect to Hallow Securities Pyt Ltd. with SFIO and whether M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. had been regular in its compliances with ROC and RB etc. The exact correspondences with M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. and SEIO have already been reproduced above in the body of the order. M/s. Hallow Securities Pt. Ltd. in response to enquiry from this office provided the following information: a. Details of the annual returns filed with the ROC from AY 2018-19 ti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd so that the issue under consideration is taken to a logical conclusion by making the argument more explicit so that the real income can be arrived at. On the said issue, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-l vs. Manish Build Well (P.) Ltd. reported at [2011) 16 taxmann.com27 (Delhi) has held as under: "Whether a distinction should be recognized and maintained between a case where assessee invokes rule 46A to adduce additional evidence before Commissioner (Appeals) and a case where Commissioner (Appeals), without being prompted by assessee, while dealing with appeal, considers it fit to cause or make a further enquiry by virtue of powers vested in him under subsection (4) of section 250 and it is only when he exercises his statutory suo moto power under above sub-section, that requirements of rule 46A need not be followed - Held, yes" Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Shankar Khandasari Sugar Mills v. CIT reported at 59 taxman 405 has observed as under: "The appellate authority should have accepted the material produced by the assessee as clarificatory in nature an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be to ensure that evidence is primarily led before the ITO. .............. The AAC should have considered this evidence in exercise of his powers under sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 250 which he failed to do. Thus, it was a fit case where the AAC should have exercised the powers conferred upon him and taken on record the zerox copies of the cheque, the certificate from the bank and the copy of the account of the assessee with the said bank and considered the same for deciding the genuineness of the loan." Further, the Ld. ITAT Bench Calcutta in the case of INCOMETAX OFFICER VS. BAJORIA FOUNDATION reported at [2001] 117 TAXMAN 126 (CAL.) (MAG.) has held as under: "Whether a harmonious interpretation of section 250, even if read with rule 46A, means that if facts of case warrant further enquiries, it is within powers of Commissioner (Appeals) to do so - Held, yes - Whether if prima facie an information is necessary to examine claim of assessee, Commissioner (Appeals) should consider necessary evidence in exercise of his powers under sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 250 - Held, yes" Further, the Ld. ITAT Ahmedabad Bench &#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidered by ld. CIT(A) is that the loans were repaid by the assessee in subsequent years and assessee has also field the copies of the relevant ledger accounts before us which are placed in the paper book. The assessee also filed a chart in this regard which is reproduced as under: 38. While accepting the plea of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) has made following observations at page 109 of the order : Repayment of Loan "The AR further submitted that the loans under contention already stand repaid in the future years. The relevant copies of account of the repayment of loans are placed at pages 46 to 49 of the paper book, It has been held in a number of judgments that once an unsecured loan has been returned back, the same cannot be treated as income u/s 68. On the above issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of income-tax vs. Gujarat Television (P.) Ltd. reported at [2024] 159 taxmann.com 739 (SC) has held as under: "SLP dismissed against order of High Court that where unsecured loans given to assessee were squared up on same date and nothing remained outstanding at end of day, much less at end of financial ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore Commissioner (Appeals) where two remand reports were called for - Whether, on facts, impugned addition on account of loan amount made by Assessing Officer was to be deleted - Held, yes [Paras 9 to 11] [In favour of assessee] Further, the Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Merrygold Gems (P.) Ltd reported at [2024] 164 taxmann.com 764 (Gujarat) has held as under: Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Scope of provision) - Assessment year 2016-17 - Assessing Officer made addition of certain amount to assessee's income on account of unsecured loan treading same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether since amount of loan received by assessee was returned within same financial year, appellate authorities had rightly deleted addition made by Assessing Officer - Held, yes [Paras 9 and 11] [In favour of assessee] Further, the Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd reported at [2022] 145 taxmann.com 27 (Gujarat) has held as under: Where assessee took loan from two parties and assessee had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the appellant becomes uncalled for in above circumstances. 2. The fund flow statement of M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. from AY 2017-18 to AY 2022-23 reveals that there were sufficient funds available with Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. out of additions made by AO which were advanced to findings and discussion, it is observed that the bank credits in the hands of various concerns including the appellant. Without prejudice to the above M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. have already been added by the AO in the assessment orders of M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2017-18 to Ar 2022-23, the adding the same money emanating from the said accounts in the hands of the assessee company would amount to double taxation of the same. 3. The AO in the assessment proceedings of Hallow Securities Pt. Ltd. has excluded the funds advanced to ACE Group from the total credits added in the hands of Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. The exclusion of the funds advanced to the ACE Group from the total credits added by the AO in the hands of Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. is immaterial as when the total addition made in the hands of Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. is compared with the increas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f loans, there was sufficient balance available in the bank account of the lender company, which proves the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. It is also relevant that out total amount of loans of 27.27 crores received, the AO has despite of doubting the creditworthiness, had made the addition of INR. 17.74 crores only meaning thereby the creditworthiness for the remaining amount is not doubted though the facts and the circumstances while granting these loans remained the same. This creates serious doubts about the mode and manner of the additions made by the AO. Once it is accepted that the lender has creditworthiness for part of the amount, the remaining amount cannot be held as unexplained. There is no case of any cash deposited in the account of any of the lender company at the time of issuing cheques/RTGS in favour of the Assessee. Therefore, Appellant has duly discharged the burden casted upon it u/s 68 of the Act. 41. It is trite law that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof as held in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd v. Commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s successfully demonstrated that the company M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. has sufficient net worth and thus its creditworthiness cannot doubted. 7. Admittedly there is no change in the facts and circumstances regarding the issue of loan taken from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. where in the case of M/s Allure Developers Pvt. Ltd while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.3559/Del/2025 & Others for AY 2020-21 & Others, we held the same as genuine, therefore, by following the said observations made by us which are Mutatis Mutandis applied to the facts of present case also if the same is treated as loan, the addition made of Rs. 40,39,05,000/- u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act towards the loan taken from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. is hereby, deleted. 8. In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 4115/Del/2025 [AY 2019-20] is dismissed. ITA No.4067/Del/2024 (Assessee's Appeal) for AY 2019-20 9. The assessee has raised following grounds in this appeal:- 1. "That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of 16.90 crores as unexplained cash payment for Farm House Nos. GM-41 and GM-42, ignoring that the registered triparite sub lease deeds w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hout following proper procedure as provided in Clause (iv) of Explanation (2) to section 148 of the Act. The remaining grounds of appeal are with respect to the merits of the addition made of INR 6.90 crores as unexplained cash payment made towards the purchases of farm houses GM 41 & 42. 11. Since in Ground of appeal No.3, assessee has raised legal issue therefore, the same is taken first for consideration. 12. Brief facts of the case are leading to this issue are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 was carried out in the case of Gaur Sons Group including its partners, suppliers and contractors on 02.03.2022. During the course of search, various information / documents were gathered containing cash consideration received by Gaur Sons group from respective buyers against the sale of plots and farm houses, shops etc. developed by it. The AO based on the information in his possession that assessee has made payment of INR 3.45 crores each for two farm houses i.e. GM 41 & 42 during FY 2018-19 relevant to AY 2019-20 i.e. year under appeal before us has made the additions of the said amount in the reassessment order passed. 13. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submits ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ged cash payment in July 2018 is therefore untenable, speculative, and devoid of any factual or legal foundation. d) That it is a matter of record that the search conducted in January 2022 on the assessee group did not unearth any incriminating material whatsoever indicating that any cash payment was made by the appellant towards the farmhouse transaction. On the contrary, the appellant holds an allotment letter dated FY 2015-16, which conclusively demonstrates that ownership rights had already been conferred. ( Refer Page No 264-279 of the PB) e) That the document relied upon by the Revenue was not found during the search on the assessee but was allegedly seized in a separate search conducted on M/s Gaursons on 02.03.2022. The assessee's case, therefore, falls squarely within the ambit of Explanation 2 to Section 148, inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2021, which is parimateria to Section 153C. f) As per Explanation 2, clause (iv) of sec 148, where material pertaining to a person other than the searched person is sought to be used, the Assessing Officer of such other person must record satisfaction and obtain prior approval of the PCIT. In the present case, no such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Page No. 557-558 of Case Law PB] iii. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - III VERSUS M/S. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, LUDHIANA362 ITR 673,. [Refer Page No. 559-561 of Case Law PB] iv. OM PRAKASH TANTIA, NISHA JAIN, MANOJ TANTIA, RENU JAIN, RUCHI TANTIA VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 25, NEW DELHI2025 (3) TMI 1473 - ITAT DELHI. [Refer Page No. 562-568 of Case Law PB] v. ESHA KEDIA VERSUS ASST. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI.2025 (3) TMI 1214 - ITAT DELHI. [Refer Page No. 569-573 of Case Law PB] vi. MUKUL RANI THAKUR VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI.2024 (11) TMI 1031 - ITAT DELHI. [Refer Page No. 574-582 of Case Law PB]." 15. Ld.AR thus, submits that addition made to be deleted. In this regard, he also placed reliance on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of Chandigarh "A" Bench in the case of Homelife Buildcon (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT [2025] 176 taxmann.com 614 (Chandigarh- Trib.) dated 17.07.2025 wherein Co-ordinate Bench has held that after 01.04.2021 if the documents found and seized from the possession of third person and considered as belonged to or pertained to the assessee, due procedure as provided u/s 148 Explanation (2) should be followed wherein th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee solely on the basis of documents found and seized during the course of search carried out in its own case on two occasions and no reference is made with regard to the documents alleged as found and seized during the course of search carried out in the case of Gaur Sons Group on 02.03.2022. 20. It is for the first time, during the pendency of the present reassessment proceedings, AO vide notice issued u/s 142(1) has raised query from the assessee about the information found from the possession of third person alleging that certain cash payments made by the assessee were found noted in the possession of third person. The AO has reproduced one Excel Sheet titled "TB(C) 05.07" which contained details of cash receipts upto month of Juley, 2018 from the sale of farm houses totaling to INR 114 crores according to which entries on Sl.No.41 & 42, contained the details of cash receipts from sale of farm houses to the assessee company. The Explanation (2) to section 148 as amended by Finance Act, 2021 is reproduced as under:- 14. "The Ld.AR draws our kind attention towards the provisions of section 147 as amended by Finance Act, 2021 read with explanation 2 of sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....escribed Authority of such satisfaction is not in accordance with law. In this regard, Co-ordinate Bench of Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of Homelife Buildcon (P.) Ltd. (supra) has observed as under:- 21. "We have gone through the additional ground of appeal as taken before us and also the assessment order, order of the CIT(A), written brief synopsis of the assessee on the issue of additional ground of appeal and also the arguments of the Ld. CIT DR. The facts are not in dispute viz-aviz the facts that the search was conducted on the assessee on 16.11.2021 and also the fact that separate search was conducted on Sh. Ajay Prabhakar (Deed Writer) and Sh. Ravi Kapoor (Broker in real estate) and distinct and different Panchanama was drawn in their respective names in their cases. In so far as, the first issue regarding the passing of order u/s 143(3) instead, of framing the assessment u/s 147 is concerned, we find that after the search was conducted on 16.11.2021, the case was centralized on 11.03.2022 and the return of Income was filed by the assessee for Asstt. Year 2021-22 as per the extended time available on 5th of March 2022 and, thus, it is a case where the notice u/s ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This new regime was introduced through significant amendments to section 147 and section 148, along with the insertion of Explanations 1 and 2, and the concept of "information suggesting escapement of income" was explicitly defined. From the reading of Explanation 2 to Section 147, it is evident that in cases where a search is initiated on or after 1st April 2021, the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to have information, which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for three assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year, in which, the search is initiated, provided that books of account, documents, assets, bullion, jewellery, or other valuable articles are seized or requisitioned in the course of the search. This deeming provision is not limited only to the person searched, but also extends to "other persons", provided that due procedure under the law-specifically, the recording of satisfaction that such seized material belongs to the assessee and obtaining prior approval from the PCIT-is followed. 25. In the present case, where the AO has admittedly relied upon mate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment framed under section 143(3), because of being based on third-party material without adhering to statutory safeguards, is bad in law. The AO was only empowered to verify the return of income and restrict his scope of inquiry accordingly; he was not permitted to expand the assessment by importing and relying upon third-party seized material without following the mandatory procedure laid down under the law. 29. Furthermore, there exists a mandatory statutory requirement that in all cases involving search-related assessments falling within the assessment year, immediately preceding the year of the search, the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner is required under section 148B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the present case, the Assessing Officer (AO) has proceeded without obtaining such approval, which is a clear violation of the procedural safeguards envisaged under the law and, as such, vitiates the assessment proceedings. In the present case, approval has been granted for assessment framed u/s 143(3) only. The relevant provision of section 148B reads as under: Prior approval for assessment, reassessment or recompilation in certain case. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessment order, referred to an approval obtained from the supervisory authority. However, a bare perusal of this approval 25 shows that it was obtained in reference to F. No. 299/36/2020/1DAR/INV3(3)/577 dated 15.07.2022, i.e., in accordance with the CBDT Circular dated 15th July 2022, and not under the mandatory provisions of section 148B of the Incometax Act, 1961. At the outset, it is important to note that the approval so obtained does not mention or consider any of the seized materials sourced from the third-party. searches conducted on Sh. Ajay Kumar Prabhakar and Sh. Ravi Kapoor, despite the AO having heavily. relied on those materials in framing the additions. The approval merely states that the appraisal report was considered, without any reference to the original documents seized or to the statutory procedure outlined under section 148B. It is pertinent to refer to the Manual of Office Procedure in February 2003, which lays down a mandatory protocol: that in all search cases, especially where material pertains to persons other than the one searched, such material is to be forwarded in original to the approving authority, and a draft order is required to be submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the AO should record the satisfaction on the material found from the possession of the third person and after obtaining the approval from the prescribed authority, action u/s 148 could be taken for the material found from the possession of third person. 25. In the instant case, AO has not followed the procedure as provided in clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to section 148 of the Act and simultaneously used the documents found from the possession of third person during pendency of reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of the documents found during the course of search in the case of assessee itself. Since the cause of action of initiation of re-assessment proceedings is entirely different and therefore, we are in agreement with the view taken by the Chandigarh bench of tribunal in the case of Homelife Buildcon (P.) Ltd. (supra) and accordingly, held that no addition could be made on the basis of the documents found and seized form the possession of third person without following procedure as prescribed in clause (3) and (4) of Explanation (2) to section 148 and without obtaining mandatory approval from the prescribed authority to use such material against the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nces made in earlier years. Addition Made 21.08.2019 18000000 Manak Estate & Finance Out of Recovery of advances made in earlier years. Addition Made 26.08.2019 loner of Ta 20000000 Partly out of funds received from Manak Estate & Finance and Partly out of funds received from AKJ Engineers Pvt Ltd. Out of Recovery of advances made in earlier years. Addition Made 27.08-2018 --- 20000000 Partly out of funds received from Manak Estate & Finance and Partly out of funds Out of Recovery of advances made in earlier years. Addition Made 1) No addition in the hands of appellant. 2) The addition was not made as the amount received from Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. was considered genuine, given that the funds were ultimately financed by "Teesta Retails Pvt. Ltd." Dhankalash Distributors Private Limited Partly out of funds received from Sundram Consultants Private Limited and Partly out of funds received from Manak Estate & Finance Out of Recovery of advances made in earlier years. Sundram Consultants Private Limited Out of Recovery of advances made in earlier years. Partly out of funds received from Manak Estate & Finance and Partly out of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s Hallow on 15.01.2020. Addition Made 10000000 Partly out of funds received of Rs 70 Lakh from Sundram Consultants Private Limited Out of Recovery of advances made earlier to Sundram. Accepted Out of Recovery of advances made in earlier years. Dhankalash Distributors Private Limited Dhankalash Distributors Private Limited Dhankalash Distributors Private Limited Manak Estate & Finance Pvt Ltd Out of Recovery of advances made in earlier years. 15.01.2020 Soner of income 16.01/2020 OJO Partly out of funds received of Rs 70 Lakh from Sundram Consultants Private Limited Out of Recovery of advances made earlier to Sundram. OJO . Noida Page 101 of 112 Document 3 Allure Developers Private Limited, A.Y. 2020-21 CIT (Appeal), Noida-3/10020/2019-20/> on 15.01.20 and Partly out of funds transferred of Rs 98 Lakh from ICICI bank to SBI on 16.01.2020 (internal transfer) An amount of Rs. 10 Crores was received in the . ICICI Bank account of M/s Hallow from M/s Teesta as of 30.12.2019. Out of this, Rs.98 lakh was transferred to the SBI account of M/s Hallow on 16.01.2020 22.01.2020 5000000 Sundram Consultants Private ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by AD Amount accepted AD in respect of Adtition mode by Interest displowed Proportionate Total loan mailed Amount accepted Adtition mode by Proportionate Document 5 = Nome of Entity advance against agreement to Amount accepted os genuine by Addition made by AD Amount refunded Repayment ledper Page No. A - 19-20 ACE MEGA STRUCTURE PATD. (TA 4115/DEL/2025 [D] ITA 4067/DEL/2025 [A] 58.39,05,000 18,00,00,000 40.39,05,000 29.09.2023 and 23.09.2022 158-164 advance against agreement to Amount accepted os genuine by Note :- . That Hallow Securities had advanced a total of 840.51 cnotes (832.31 crores in AY 2019-20 and 88.20 crores in AY 2020-21) towards the purchase of a Farm House, and 834 34 crores (229.34 crores in AY 2019-20 and 85 crores in AY 2020-21) towards seven plots to M's Ace Mega Structure Pvt. Ltd., pursuant to agreements dated 19.03.2019 and 14.03.2019, respectively. These agreements were seized during the course of search and are reproduced in the assessment order of Mis Ace Mega Structure Put. Ltd. for AY 2019-20 at Pages 2-6.( The copy of the agreements are reproduced at Page No. 196-215 of the Paper Book filed before th....