TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....convenience the Appeals of the Revenue are heard together and decided in this common order. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and our findings and the conclusion are as under:- I.T.A. No. 4799/DEL/2024 (A.Y 2017-18) 4. The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 31/08/2024, deleted the protective addition of Rs. 2,40,00,000/- made in the hands of the Assessee by invoking the provision of Section 69A of the Act on the ground that the substantive addition made in the case of M/s Capital Power System Ltd. for Assessment Year 2017-18 has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Since, the said substantial addition made in the case of Capital Power System Ltd. has been set aside for Assessment Year 2017-18 in ITA No. 55/Del/2024 on the ground of invalid approval accorded u/s 153D of the Act, the protective addition made in the hands of the Assessee will not survive. Accordingly, we find no merits in the grounds of Appeal of the Revenue, accordingly, Grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. I.T.A. No. 4800/DEL/2024 (A.Y 2018-19) 5. The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 31/08/2024 deleted the protective addition of Rs. 83,00,000/- made in the hands of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat, the note number is not mentioned. Therefore, it cannot be established that the amount was actually transferred. Had note number be given with the chat, in that case the logical inference would be that the amount was subsequently received by the appellant. 17. It has also been found that in some chat, in response to the request to transfer the amount, there is confirmation message from receiver of the chat with regard to execution of the transaction. However, in this case no confirmation chat from the receiver of the chat has been found during search. As such from the whats up chat, it is not established that financial transaction of Rs 25,00,000/- was actually been carried out. 18. The demand has made in the chat could have been basis for making further investigation to establish the actual receipt of money. It is also a matter of fact that no party in the chat has confirmed the actual receipt of money. 19. Therefore, it is apparent that the money was not actually received even though there was demand for the same. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer has treated the amount of undisclosed income on the basis of demand for the same. However, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entioned at serial no 1, 2 and 3 are on account of one single transaction of Rs 10,00,000/-. On the basis of chat mentioned above serial no 3, the protective addition of Rs 10,00,000/- were made in the impugned order. As such it was pointed out by the appellant that there has been duplication in the computation of substantive unaccounted income of Rs 20,00,000/-. It was pointed out that same message was adopted thrice for computing the unaccounted income by the Assessing Officer. 16. The chats are as under:- SI. NO Date From To Message Amount of unaccounted cash involved 1 22.05.2018 Viyoum Sanjay Mozz Viyoum Sanjay Mozz Rs 10 90ul74478 A N Sharma 8800098116 10,00,000 2 22.05.2018 Pawan Bansal Viyoum Sanjay Mozz Bansal Rs 10 /01M477530 AN Sharma 8800098116 10,00,000 10,00,000 3 23.05.2018 Pawan Bansal Pawan Bansal Rec 10KG? 10,00,000 17. The first chat is regarding receipt of money of Rs. 10,00,000/- by Shri Pawan Bansal from Shri Sanjay. The Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of first chat in the case of the appellant. 18. The second chat is regarding r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4. During the course of search statement dated 22/07/2018 of Shri Pawan Bansal was recorded and in the reply to question no 7 of statement it has been submitted by Shri Pawan Bansal that Mr. Ashanand Sharma is looking after petty cash expenses, general office administration as well as doing bank related work like RTGS, cheque deposit etc. As such AO wrongly held that amount mentioned in whatsapp chat is in lacs as Shri AshanandSharmа was handling petty cash and details of whatsapp chat has been submitted in the statement recorded during search. 55. In the impugned order, it has been alleged by AO that Shri Ashanand Sharma given the statement that "10" means Rs 10,00,000/-. The said observation was made by AO on the basis of question no 15 of statement which is pertaining to 18th May 2018. However said statement has not been relied upon by AO as no addition has been made in order for A Y 2019-20 on the basis of question no 15. The appellant requested AO that before relying on the statement of Shri Ashanand Sharma opportunity of cross examination may please be given. However the opportunity of cross examination was not provided to appellant. "With regard to wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umericals may be irrelevant which I don't remember since it pertains to July 2016. Q.29 I am once again warned you that false statement or facts clearly attracts penalties and prosecutions as per IT Act, 1961. Now, you confirm in respect to question 27 that the amount paid to the beneficiaries / farmers was Rs. 75,000/-. Ans. Yes, the final payment made to the farmer for removing illegal encroachment was Rs. 75,000/- in cash. Q.32 In your whatsapp conversation with Mr. CPS Ashanand on 18 May 2018 conversation "Rs 10/51D272957 A N Sharma 8800098116 ANANDBHAI 7838790052 For 10" and on 22 May 2018 conversation "Rs 10/90u174478 A N Sharma 8800098116 Rs 10/01M477530 A N Sharma 8800098116 +91 9599804822 call him after 5 pm" appears. Can you explain the contents and its meaning? Ans. I have seen the contents of 18th May and 22nd May 2018 and able to recall that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to be collected by CPS Ashanand was finally collected by him 22nd May. The other details in the messages of 18th and 22nd May are irrelevant. Q.36 I am showing you the printout of your whatsapp conversation dated 11 January 2018 with Amit Ruchy (Mb. 9811024478). Can ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Varanasi sa half half hr distance pa Mughal saraihai..canur person collect from there. It's ok. Giving Tokn. Rs. 10 Note 86H035238 Pammi Kumar varansi. 9760112131 and 7379008872". And on 1st Feb. 2018 "Sir 4 delivered at Mughal sarai. Yes received". And on 8th Feb. "Require 6 in Varanshi& 4 in Lucknow. Sir send token no. for both. Lucknow require 5/- token 4S537675 TEN RUPEE NOTE SANDEEP SINGH 9891338855. Varanshi require 6/-Note no. Rs. 10 48G57325J Pammi Kumar Varansi 9760112131 and 7379008872. Varansiwalamugul sari samilega. Ok". And on 9th Feb. "Both received. Ok". Can you explain the contents, its meaning and presence of various denominations of currency notes? Ans. From the above conversations, it is revealed that Rs. 4,000/- have been collected from Mughal sarai near Varanasi, and the same is confirmed on 01st Feb 2018 by the truck drivers for unloading of materials. On 8th Feb 2018 Rs. 5,000/- in Lucknow and Rs. 6,000/- Varanasi (Mughalsarai) was collected and the same was confirmed on 9th Feb 2018. These payments were also received by the truck drivers for unloading of materials. Since the unknown persons are collecting cash, the relevant messages are convey....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not remembered the messages, however, subsequently he stated that the figures were in thousands. He also explained the purpose of making the impugned transaction in cash. 60. Shri Ashanand Sharma is an employee of the company having no stake other than salary in the affairs of the company. Whereas on the other hand, Shri pawan Kumar Bansal is the director and shareholder in the company. During the course of search, the statement of Shri Ashanand Sharma was taken. There is no reason to disbelieve his statement under oath. Being an employee, there is no reason why he would not speak the truth regarding the quantum of amount mentioned in the chat. If Shri Ashanand Sharma has stated that 10 mentioned in the chat refers to Rs. 10 lakhs, it is presumed to be true and correct. 61. The subsequent retraction of statement under oath by Shri Ashanand Sharma is not supported by any other evidence. Therefore, the first statement under oath of Shri Ashanand Sharma is considered to be true. 62. Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal has faced enquiries during the course of search for the second time. He understands the nuances of statement under oath. When the statement of the two per....