TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1032
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d/2024, CO 31/Ahd/2025, 90/Ahd/2024, CO 25/Ahd/2025, 91/Ahd/2024, CO 26/Ahd/2025, 92/Ahd/2024, CO 27/Ahd/2025, 93/Ahd/2024, CO 28/Ahd/2025, ITA No. 1673/Ahd/2024, CO 29/Ahd/2025, IT(SS)A Nos. 95/Ahd/2024, CO 23/Ahd/2025, 96/Ahd/2024, CO 24/Ahd/2025, 113/Ahd/2024, CO 19/Ahd/2025, 114/Ahd/2024, CO 20/Ahd/2025, 115/Ahd/2024, CO 21/Ahd/2025, 116/Ahd/2024, CO 18/Ahd/2025, 117/Ahd/2024, CO 22/Ahd/2025, 97/Ahd/2024, CO 35/Ahd/2025, 98/Ahd/2024, CO 41/Ahd/2025, 109/Ahd/2024, CO 36/Ahd/2025, 110/Ahd/2024, CO 37/Ahd/2025, 111/Ahd/2024, CO 39/Ahd/2025, 118/Ahd/2024, CO 38/Ahd/2025, 119/Ahd/2024, CO 40/Ahd/2025, 86/Ahd/2024, CO 5/Ahd/2025 ORDER PER BENCH: All these captioned appeals by the Revenue and corresponding Cross Objections by the different Assessee's and one Appeal by the Assessee (Anuradha Shivkumar Gogia in IT(SS)A No.130/Ahd/2024 for Assessment Year 2019-20) have been directed against the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'] and pertained to the assessments carried out under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") pursuant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f other persons or concerns, as well as inferences drawn by the AO based on such material. 2.4. Aggrieved by the additions made in the assessment orders, the assessee's preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the detailed written submissions, voluminous paper books, and legal arguments of the assessee's, proceeded to delete the majority of the additions. A key basis for the deletion, particularly for those assessment years that had already attained finality and were not pending on the date of search (i.e., unabated assessment years), was the legal ground that no additions could be made under section 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search action in case of the specific assessee and in relation to the unabated/completed assessment year/s. For this legal proposition, the CIT(A) placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC). For the abated assessment years (where assessments were pending on the date of search), the additions were primarily deleted on merits, with the CIT(A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th Erita project. 5. DETAILED ISSUE-WISE ADJUDICATION 5.1 At the outset, the Ld. representatives of both the Revenue and the assessee's mutually agreed that the various additions made in the assessment orders fall into six main categories of issues as noted above. It was mutually agreed by the Ld. Representatives of both sides that the appeals could be adjudicated by taking up each common issue, supported by a lead case for arguments. The assessee's have taken almost identical cross-objections, which we will discuss in the later part of the order. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the appeals issue-wise. Issue 1: Jurisdiction in Unabated Assessments & Addition for Nana Chiloda Project 5.2 As per the details provided during the hearing, this issue is common in the following appeals filed by the Revenue : S.No. Appeal No. Assessee Name Assessment Year Appellant Ground No. 1 IT(SS)A 86/AHD/2024 M/s Shivam Associates 2018-19 Revenue 1 & 2 2 IT(SS)A 85/AHD/2024 Amitkumar Shivkumar Gogia 2019-20 Revenue 1 3 IT(SS)A 98/AHD/2024 Sagar Shivkumar Gogia 2019-20 Revenue 1 Lead case : M/s Shivam Associate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The Ld. CITA deleted the addition primary on two grounds. Firstly, on the legal ground, he noted that the assessment year 2018-19 was an unabated assessment year as the time limit to issue a notice under section 143(2) of the Act had expired before the date of search. He, following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd.(supra), no addition could be made in an unabated/completed assessment under section 153A of the Act, unless it was based on incriminating material found during the course of search action pertaining to that particular assessee and that specific year. He held that the WhatsApp chat from a third party's phone could not be considered as incriminating material belonging to the assessee. 7.2 Secondly, on merits, he held that the WhatsApp chat was a "dumb document" as it did not name the assessee, was dated almost a year after the assessee's transaction, referred to a different survey number (124/2), and was completely uncorroborated by any evidence of cash movement or statements from any involved party. 8. Submissions Before the Tribunal 8.1. Revenue's Plea: The Ld. DR contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctional principle-unabated assessments/ no incriminating material unearthed: 9.2. The undisputed facts are that the assessee-firm had purchased a parcel of land on 21.09.2017. The assessment for the relevant year, A.Y. 2018-19, was unabated/completed assessment as on the date of search, i.e. 15.10.2019. The Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings under section 153A of the Act, made an addition of Rs. 24,21,37,500/- under section 69 of the Act, alleging that the assessee had made on-money payment for the said purchase of land. The solitary basis for this substantive addition was a WhatsApp chat dated 14.09.2018, which was retrieved from the mobile phone of a third party, one Shri Vijaykumar K. Manghrani. This chat purportedly contained a discussion about a prevailing rate of Rs. 22,500/- per sq. yd. for land in a nearby area. The legal position concerning the scope of assessment under section 153A of the Act, for unabated/completed assessment years is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. 454 ITR 212 (SC) has unequivocally settled the law on this point. The Apex Court has h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot name the assessee, it pertains to a different survey number, and it is dated almost a full year after the assessee's transaction was concluded and registered. The AO has made no independent inquiry to verify the contents of the chat, has not cross-examined the parties to the chat to establish its authenticity or context, and has brought no material on record to establish a live and direct nexus between this third-party chat and the specific transaction undertaken by the assessee. The addition is based on assumptions and presumptions, which is impermissible in law. 9.5. Therefore, looking from any angle, both on the jurisdictional ground as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Abhisar Buildwell" (supra) and on the merits of the case, the addition made by the AO is legally untenable and deserves to be deleted. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the well-reasoned order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and in deleting the impugned addition. C. Connected Cases for AY 2019-20 (Abated Assessments): 9.6. In the cases of Amitkumar Shivkumar Gogia and Sagar Shivkumar Gogia for AY 2019-20, the assessments were abated. However, the CIT(A) deleted the additions on merits, find....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (SS)A No.128/AHD/2024: 11.1. The Revenue is in appeal and has raised the following grounds: "1) In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the order under section 153A r/w 143(3) of the Act is bad in law and not sustainable without considering the inference made by the A.O. based on the indicative but relevant incriminating material unearthed, seized during the search and post-search operation. 2) 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. 39,66,33,526/- on account of undisclosed business income. 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 undisclosed investment u/s. 69 r.w.s.115BBE of Rs. 95,56,600/- on account of on-money payment for purchase of shops. 4) The Revenue craves leave to add/ alter/ armed and/ or substitute any or all of the grounds of appeal." 12. Brief Facts & Findings of the Assessing Officer: 12.1. As per the assessment order, during the search action in the case of the assessee, a digital image carrying handwrit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;s case for the purchase of Shop No. E-T1. Thus, the legal/jurisdictional requirement was not met. He further noted that even on merits, the addition was based on assumptions only and was not supported by any corroborative evidence. 14. Submissions Before the Tribunal: 14.1. Revenue's Plea: The Ld. DR contended that a digital image containing noting for shop C-339 in Sumel Business Park-III, which suggested a market rate of Rs. 36,200/- per Sq. Ft. was found during the search. He in this respect submitted that the digital image was crucial evidence of the prevailing market rate in the project, and hence, the AO was justified in using it to estimate the on-money payment for other shops purchased in the same project. 14.2. Assessee's Plea: The Ld. AR, however, submitted that the relevant assessment year was unabated. The digital image relied upon by the AO did not pertain to any shop purchased by the assessee's and that the said unverified, thirdparty document did constitute as an incriminating material qua the assessee. That it was duly explained to the AO that shop C-339 was owned and sold by a third party, and evidence for the same was also provided. That the additions ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per Sq. Ft. in Sumel Business Park. The AO brushed aside all this evidence and proceeded with his estimation based on a single, unverified, and uncorroborated piece of digital data, that too not related to the shops/property purchased by the assessee. No evidence of any on- money or cash exchanged between the parties was found. A bald estimation without any supporting evidence of cash flow cannot be sustained. The Ld. CIT(A) was, therefore, justified, in deleting the additions on this issue. Consequently, all appeals of the Revenue on this issue are devoid of merit and are hereby dismissed. 15.3. These findings, both legal and on merits, will apply to all 19 appeals covered under this issue. 16. Issue 3: Addition on account of alleged under-invoicing of sales: 16.1 This issue is common in the following 14 appeals: S.No. Appeal No. Assessee Name Assessment Year Appellant Ground No. 1 IT(SS)A 125/AHD/2024 Shivkumar Lachmandas Gogia 2014-15 Revenue 1&2 2 IT(SS)A 126/AHD/2024 Shivkumar Lachmandas Gogia 2015-16 Revenue 1&2 3 IT(SS)A 127/AHD/2024 Shivkumar Lachmandas Gogia 2016-17 Reven....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erial Unearthed During Search Action: 19.1. The following materials was unearthed and seized during the search action carried out u/s 132 of the Act: * Seized Documents (Annexures A/2 to A/6): These were loose paper files containing manual order forms, "order estimates," and corresponding tax invoices. A comparison revealed significant differences between the value on the order estimate and the final tax invoice, thus showing under invoicing. However, it is pertinent to mention here that these documents were seized from the premises of M/s. Shivali Fashion Pvt. Ltd. and pertained to a limited period from October 1, 2019, to October 14, 2019, relevant to AY 2020-21, not to the year under consideration (AY 2014-15). * Digital Data: WhatsApp chats from a mobile phone were seized, which included messages (No. 178 and 179) mentioning a "60:40 ratio." The AO interpreted this as a formula for under-invoicing sales (60% by cheque, 40% in cash). 20. Statements Recorded: * Employee's Statement: Shri Mayur R. Ramchandwani, an employee, stated on October 15-16, 2019, that the difference between the order estimate and the final invoice was received in cash a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent. No incriminating material, whatsoever, relating to the assessee's concern, M/s. Shiv Textiles, for AY 2014-15 was found during the search. It was submitted that making an estimation on the entire turnover based on these limited documents was a wild guess and imagination and unjustified in a search assessment under Section 153A. 8. Material Belongs to a Different Entity and Year: The seized annexures (A/2-A/6) belonged to a different legal entity (M/s. Shivali Fashion Pvt. Ltd.) and pertained to a different assessment year (AY 2020-21). 23. AO's Final Reasoning and Finding: The AO rejected all of the assessee's submissions. He relied heavily on the initial statements of the assessee and his employee, treating the later explanations and retractions as self-serving afterthoughts. He found the theory of profit neutralization to be unsubstantiated, concluding that the suppressed sales were a "net gain" to the assessee, as all expenses were already accounted for in the books. He extrapolated the findings from the limited documents of M/s. Shivali Fashion Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2020-21 of 40-60% suppression ratio to the total turnover of the assessee's propri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 25. CIT(A)'s Reasoning and Findings: The CIT(A) first acknowledged the binding legal principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and held that for a completed/unabated assessment, the foundational requirement for making an addition under Section 153A is the existence of incriminating material unearthed during the search for the relevant assessment year. He observed that the AO himself had noted that the seized annexures (A/2 to A/6) pertained to transactions in October 2019 (AY 2020-21) and were found at the premises of a different concern, namely, M/s. Shivali Fashion Pvt. Ltd. He further observed that there was a complete absence of any incriminating material that could be linked to the assessee's business for AY 2014-15. That the addition was based purely on extrapolation. He held that the AO's action of making an addition in AY 2014-15 based on material pertaining to AY 2020-21 was contrary to the spirit of the law. He held that the additions under section 153A of the Act must have a direct nexus with material found in that search for that specific year. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, concluded that the addition made by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC), which holds that material for one year cannot be used for other years without separate incriminating material for the relevant year. 27. Adjudication and Findings of this Tribunal: 27.1. We have considered the rival submissions of the Ld. Representatives of the parties. In these set of appeals, the Assessing Officer made substantial additions by alleging under-invoicing of sales. A perusal of the assessment order reveals that the AO extrapolated a supposed modus operandi which he believed was unearthed during the search of a different entity, namely M/s Shivali Fashions, and that too for a different assessment year - A.Y. 2020-21. This supposed modus operandi was then blindly applied to the present assessee's for various unabated assessment years. The law does not sanction such a course of action. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra) has held that material relating to one assessment year cannot be used to make additions in other assessment years without there being corresponding incriminat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of undisclosed investment u/s. 69 r.w.s.115BBE of Rs. 2,93,57,000/-on account of on-money payment for purchase of shops. 4) 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. 14,38,750 u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE on account of exempt LTCG u/s 10(38) of the Act from penny stock scrip in the shell companies. 5) The Revenue craves leave to add/alter/amend and/or substitute any or all of the grounds of appeal. 30. Brief facts relating to the issue: 30.1. During the course of the assessment under section 153A of the Act, the AO noted from the digital data found during the search action contained a copy of the Distribution Deed of land bearing Survey No. 43/4/1 situated at Bodakdev, Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad entered between Shri Ashokbhai Krishnagiri (1st Party) and Shri Kishor Krishnagiri & Shri Anup Krishnagiri (2nd Party). The AO noted that the assessee had purchased Shop No. 104 from M/s. D. K. Properties. The AO observed that Bodakdev was a fast-growing commercial area and that the lesser value o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Findings of the Ld. CIT(A): The Ld. CITA deleted the addition so made by the AO. He noted that AY 2018-19 was an unabated assessment year. He held that the addition was not based on any incriminating material found from the assessee for the relevant year, and was therefore jurisdictionally invalid as per the law laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra). He also found the addition to be untenable on merits on the ground that the alleged Whatsapp chat recovered in a separate search action from a third party and also relating to a different property cannot be made basis to make the impugned addition in the case of the assessee. 33. Proceedings before this Tribunal: 33.1. Revenue's Plea: The Ld. DR submitted that the AO was justified in relying on a third-party WhatsApp chat indicating higher market rates. 33.2. Assessee's Plea: The Ld. AR, however, contended that the addition in an unabated year based on an uncorroborated, third-party chat was illegal. 34. Findings of the ITAT: 34.1. The facts and legal issue here are identical to those that have been discussed above wherein it has been held that that in the absence of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he brief facts relevant to the issue under consideration are that the assessee declared long term capital gain during the year under consideration in respect of shares sold during the year and claimed the same as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. The AO, however, observed that the scrip in which the assessee invested was a penny stock and that the alleged long term capital gains claimed by the assessee on such penny stock was bogus and that the assessee had brought in his unaccounted money into the regular books of account. The AO, in this respect, referred to the statement of Shri Shiv Kumar Gogia recorded on 15.10.2019 wherein, though, he denied of having any knowledge that the shares of four scrips in which the assessee and his family members traded were penny scrips, however admitted to have taken accommodation entry of LTCG during different years. 37.2. The Assessee, however submitted before the AO that the long term capital gain was genuine. It was submitted that in his statement Sh. Shiv Kumar Lachmandas Gogia never stated that long term capital gain was bogus. In fact, it was stated by him that his family members had earned long term capital gain. That all the details and ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....specific incriminating material contradicting the documented transactions, is illegal. The AR submitted that it has never been accepted by Shri Shiv Kumar Gogia that these were penny stocks and that the Ld. AO has misunderstood his statement and has wrongly drawn adverse inference against the assessee. He submitted that firstly, there was nothing incriminating found in respect of Long Term Capital Gains earned by the assessee. He, referring to the statement of Shri Shiv Kumar Gogia, has pointed out that the search officer without having any material on record and only upon verification of past Income tax returns, asked general questions to him relating to the investment made equity shares and capital gains arose thereon. He pointing out to question No.23 explained that the search officer misguided him that the 4 companies in which the assessee traded were in the list of shell companies without providing any evidence in this respect and that Shri Gogia was pressurize him to believe that these were shell companies. However, Shri Gogia, specifically mentioned that the investment in all these scrips was made assuming all these are genuine shares. He further submitted that Shri Shivkuma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvindbhai Patel- 2023 (7) TMI 176 - Gujarat High Court Dated: - 4- 5-2023 * The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Ahmedabad Versus Amita Arvindbhai Patel -2023 (6) TMI 526 - Gujarat High Court -Dated: - 4-5- 2023 * The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Ahmedabad Versus Kaushik Devjibhai Patel -2023 (5) TMI 1318 - Gujarat High Court -Dated: - 4-5- 2023 41. Findings of the ITAT: 41.1. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the matter. The assessment years in question are unabated. The law requires that any addition for such years must be based on incriminating material. Here, the AO has relied on a general Investigation Wing report and on the statement of Shri Shivkumar Gogia, without pointing to any specific incriminating document seized from the respective assessee's for the respective years that would prove the transactions to be bogus. It is a settled position of law that a statement alone, without any corroborative incriminating material, cannot be the basis for an addition. The assessee has provided a complete documentary trail for the share transactions which included demat account statements showing the entry and exit o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bove admission but only during the assessment proceedings at a belated stage. In his retraction, the assessee stated that the surrender was made under a mistaken belief and without looking into books of account and without understanding law and that he had been compelled and perturbed by events of search and that the pressure of search was built so much that he had to make the surrender without having actual possession of the assets or unexplained investments or expenses incurred and that there was no such income as undisclosed. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court, after considering the fact and circumstances of the case, while dismissing the appeal of the revenue, observed that though the fact that the assessee may have retracted his statement belatedly, yet, it did not relieve the AO from examining the explanation offered by the assessee with reference to the books of account produced before him. It has been held that a retracted statement even under section 132(4) of the Act would require some corroborative material for the Assessing Officer to proceed to make additions on the basis of such statement. 41.3. In the case of "Basant Bansal vs. ACIT" reported in (2015)63 taxmann.com 199....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irectors General of Income Tax Inv. Sir, Subject: Confession of additional Income during the course of search & seizure and survey operation - regarding Instances have come to the notice of the Board where assessee's have claimed that they have been forced to confess the undisclosed income during the course of the search & seizure and survey operations. Such confessions, if not based upon credible evidence, are later retracted by the concerned assessee's while filing returns of income. In these circumstances, on confessions during the course of search & seizure and survey operations do not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, advised that there should be focus and concentration on collection of evidence of income which leads to information on what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed before the Income Tax Departments. Similarly, while recording statement during the course of search it seizures and survey operations no attempt should be made to obtain confession as to the undisclosed income. Any action on the contrary shall be viewed adversely. Further, in respect of pending assessment proceedings also, assessing officers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....other directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were found to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining them by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement from them by invoking the powers under section 132(4) of the Act, does not arise. Therefore, the statement of the managing director of the assessee, recorded patently under section 132(4) of the Act, does not have any evidentiary value." 8.5.1. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of " CIT vs Harjeev Aggarwal" reported in 241 Taxman 199(Delhi) has held in para 21 of the judgement as follows: "21. A plain reading of Section 132 (4) of the Act indicates that the authorized officer is empowered to examine on oath any person who is found in possession or control of any books of accounts, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or any other valuable article or thing. The explanation to Section 132 (4), which was inserted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, further clarifies that a person may be examined not only in respect of the books of accounts or other documents found as a result ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vkumar Gogia without even any evidence on the file that the said scrips were penny stock scripts. When the statement of Shri Shivkumar Gogia is read as a whole, then it comes out that the said admission of Shri Shivkumar Gogia of dealing in penny scrips was not intended but was abstracted by misrepresenting the facts without any cogent or reliable evidences on the file. Moreover, the statement of Shri Shivkumar Gogia is not binding upon the assessee. The assessee has duly proved on file the genuineness of the transaction which could not be rebutted by the AO. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal of the Revenue, the same is also accordingly dismissed. 42. Issue 6: Addition sustained by CIT(A) for on-money received in Earth Erita Project: 42.1. This Appeal has been filed by the Assessee. S.No. Appeal No. Assessee Name Assessment Year Appellant Ground No. 1 ITA 130/AHD/2024 Anuradha Shivkumar Gogia 2019-20 Assessee 4 42.2. This issue is specific to Smt. Anuradha Shivkumar Gogia for A.Y. 2019- 20, which was an abated assessment year. The assessee is in appeal (ITA 130/AHD/2024) against the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 40,00,000/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld to Smt. Leelaben K Mehta for Rs. 4,46,00,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee was asked to explain the difference and was show-caused as to why the difference of Rs. 40 lakhs received in cash as on-money be not added to the income of the assessee. The assessee, however, submitted that the said bungalow has been sold for Rs. 4,06,00,000/- only and no such additional cash payment was received. The assessee also brought on record the affidavit of Shri Sajag Mehta Son of Late Smt. Linaben K. Mehta in which he confirmed that property was purchased for Rs. 4,06,00,000/- by cheque and no cash payment had been received. It was also explained that the alleged agreement for sale of Rs. 4,46,00,000/- was prepared for bank loan for purchase of bungalow, which was not acted upon. 44. Findings of the AO: 44.1. However, the learned Assessing Officer did not accept the reply and evidences brought on record by the assessee as satisfactory and treated the difference of Rs. 40,00,000/- between the agreement and the sale deed as undisclosed on-money and added the same as unexplained income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. 45. Findings of the CIT(A): ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... further submitted that no cash trail was found/identified by the Ld. AO which could substantiate that the assessee had received any cash as on-money and hence prayed for the deletion of addition on this issue. Revenue's Plea: The Ld. DR, however, has supported order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the impugned addition has been rightly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 47. Findings of the ITAT: 47.1. We have considered the rival submissions of the Ld. Representatives of the parties. The initial onus to prove that the assessee had received consideration over and above, what was stated in the final registered document, was on the Revenue. The Revenue's case rests entirely on the draft agreement to sell. The assessee explained that the higher amount in the draft agreement was tentatively mentioned only for the exploratory purpose of the purchaser's bank loan application, which ultimately was not acted upon, and the deal was concluded at the lower price. Crucially, the assessee also furnished a sworn affidavit from the purchaser of the property, who categorically stated on oath that no cash payment was made to the assessee over and above the consideration recorded in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ending appeals: 1. IT(SS)A 79/AHD/2024 ACIT Vs Shiv Kumar Lachman Dass Gogia HUF AY- 2014-15 2. IT(SS)A 81/AHD/2024 ACIT Vs. Shiv Kumar Lachman Dass Gogia HUF AY 2016-17. 48.1. The aforesaid two appeals of the revenue are therefore also dismissed being not maintainable having low tax effect than the prescribed limit under section 268A of the Act. 49. Issue 7: Validity of approval u/s 153D (Cross Objections) Lead Case: CO 5/AHD/2025 (Assessee) of AY 2018-19 49.1 The assessee has taken identical ground of cross-objections in all the Cross-objections filed by them. Cross-Objection No.5/Ahd/2025 is taken as the lead case for the purpose of narration of facts and further deliberation: 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed u/s 153A/143(3) is illegal and liable to be quashed as the same has been passed violating the mandatory provisions of section 153D of the Act. 2) That the purported approval u/s 153D of the Act is illegal, bad in law and also without application of mind. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition made in the assessment order is itself illegal, unsustainable, cont....