TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1740
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in not adjudicating the ground relating to framing of assessment u/s. 144 of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in upholding the assessment order passed without providing the appellant with the material/information/statements relied upon by Ld. AO and opportunity of cross-examination, which is in gross violation to principles of natural justice. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,43,696/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in not adjudicating the ground relating to rejection of books of accounts u/s. 145(3) of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,43,850/- at an estimated profit rate of 12%. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 1, 11,500/- without any basis whatsoever. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming. action of the Ld. AO in charging interest u/s.234A/B/C/D of the Act. 10. The Ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... furnished various details in relation to purchase of these two properties i.e. the copies of two sale deeds, copy of appellate order passed in the case of his relative Bhumika Manish Ramchandani for Assessment Year 2012-13 by the CIT(A) in support of the contention that notice issued under Section 153C of the Act is void ab initio in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shri Anil Kumar Gopikishan Agrawal, 106 taxmann.com 137. After going through the details and the submissions of the assessee, the assessee was given final notice on 21.11.2019, thereafter, the assessee filed his return of income on 26.11.2019 in response to notice under Section 153C of the Act. The Revenue issued notice under Section 143(2) on 28.11.2019 and thereafter the assessee furnished details in response to show cause notice dated 28.11.2019 issued by the Assessing Officer. The assessee replied the same. After taking cognisance of the same, the Assessing Officer observed that there was an investment in immovable property as per the seized documents during the course of search wherein Annexure-A8 (Hard Disc) containing various residential and commercial projects. The Asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich, proceedings u/s. 153C have been initiated: - "search" action took place in the case of "HN Safal" (i.e. a third party) on 04.09.2013; - A "hard disk" was seized from which an "excel sheet" was found which contained data of scheme named 'Samuel Business Park II ("scheme"); - The "excel sheet" contained record of "on-money" received by HN Safal from various customers who bought units in the said scheme - Assessee has purchased two units in the scheme and as per "excel sheet", assessee has paid on-money of Rs. 14,43,696/- for purchasing such units. Assessee categorically made following submissions before AO during the course of proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act: - Assessee denied payment of any on-money towards purchase of two units in the scheme (Pgs. 14, 15, 17 of Asst. Order); - Assessee categorially requested for material/information/statement sought to be used against assessee (Pgs.15 & 17 of Asst. Order); Eventually, AO framed assessment whereby impugned addition of Rs. 14,43,696/- was made in respect of alleged on-money payment. The impugned addition came to be confirmed by CIT(A) as well. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion is not justified in the eye of law. Hence, the impugned addition deserves to be deleted in the larger interest of justice. The same be held so now. No addition could have been made on the basis of "excel sheet" without any corroborative evidence demonstrating alleged "on-money payment" The impugned addition has been made solely on the basis of "excel sheer" found send seized during search carried out in case of third party Following vital aspects oy be appreciated. - Excel sheet has been prepared by some 'third party' - Excel sheet has not been prepared by 'assessee' - Excel sheet does not contain 'signature' of assessee, - There is no 'confirmation from recipient' as to receipt of on- money. - No cash trail emanate from the excel sheet, Thus, the impugned addition has been made merely on the basis of "entries" recorded in the excel sheet There is no corroborative evidence whatsoever in support of the allegation as to any search on-money payment having been made by the assessee. It is a settled law that no addition can be made merely on the basis o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It is well settled that assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.x. 153A/153C of the Act is to be framed strictly on the basis of "incriminating material" found during the course of "search" action carried out in the case of "assessee concerned". Reliance is placed on the following decisions: - CIT vs. Singhad Technical Education Society - 397 ITR 344 (SC); - PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC); - PCTT vs. Saumya Construction (2017) 387 ITR 529 (Guj); - CIT vs. Kabul Chawla - (2015) 380 ITR 573 (Del.); In view of the above, AO was not justified in making the impugned additions. Hence, both the additions are not justified in the eye of law. Even on merits, additions are not tenable in the eye of law: No valid reasoning has been assigned by AO while making impugned additions. As regards addition of Rs. 1,11,500/-, - - There is no discussion in the Asst. Order - There is no clarity about the addition. - There is no basis for the addition - Under such circumstances, such addition is not tenable in the eye of law. As regards addition of Rs. 2,43,850/-, - ....