TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1227
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntral Circle-1, Udaipur (in short, 'Ld.AO'), passed under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, for A.Ys 2014-15 & 2015-16, date of order 26/12/2018 and for A.Y. 2017-18 order passed u/s 143(3) date of order 26/12/2018. 2. The registry informed that the appeals filed by the assessee are filed with a delay of 36 days. The assessee filed the condonation petition and explained the reason for delay. The Ld.DR had not made any objection against the submission of the Ld. AR. Accordingly, the delay for 36 days in filing the appeals is condoned and matter is taken for adjudication. 3. All the appeals have same nature of facts and common issue. So, all the appeals and cross objection are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. Related to ITA Nos 453 & 455/Jodh/2024, these appeals have common facts. Accordingly, ITA No.453/Jodh/2024 is taken as lead case. 4. The Ld. AR submitted a paper book comprising pages 1 to 188, which has been placed on record. He advanced arguments primarily on the legal ground that the Ld. AO failed to record the requisite satisfaction for issuance of notice under section 153C of the Act for each assessment year separately. According to him....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. Even the cross-examination of all the parties involved also proves that clearly the cash found belonged to Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma. 53. Further, satisfaction note is required to be recorded under section 153C of the IT Act for each Assessment Year and in the impugned proceedings, a consolidated satisfaction note has been recorded for different Assessment Years, which also vitiates the entire assessment proceedings. In view of all these findings, it is said that the appeals do not have any substance for seeking intervention as sought for by the appellant/Revenue. 54. The question as regards whether in an intra court appeal, a Division Bench could remit a writ petition in the matter of moulding the relief, it is relevant to refer to an Apex Court decision dated 31-7-2018 rendered in the case of Roma Sonkar v. Madhya Pradesh State Public Service Commission [Civil Appeal Nos. 7400-7401 of 2018, dated 31-7-2018]. The relevant paragraph 3 of the said order reads thus: "3. We have very serious reservations whether the Division Bench in an intra court appeal could have remitted a writ petition in the matter of moulding the relief. It is the exercise of jurisdi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 100-101 which is reproduced as below:- "Satisfaction Note for initiation of action u/s 193C of the I.T. Act In the case of M/s. Anjana Construction (AADFA1389B) 1. Name & address of the assessee in whose case action u/s 153C is proposed. M/s Anjana Construction 2. Name ad PAN of search assessee during whose proceedings satisfaction us/ 153C is drawn. Shri Udai Lalal Anjana (ABNPA4495M), Shri Puranmal Anjana (ABWPA2126J) 3. Name of searched group Chetak Group of Nimbahera 4. Date of search 16.09.2016 5. Identification of the seized / documents which in the opinion of AO of the searched assessee, belong o the person mentioned at Sr.No.1 (a) Reference of Annexure & Panchanama Through which relevant assets / document was seized / requisitioned Annexure-A, Page 1-63, Party No.3 (b) Address of the place from where asset /document was seized Udai Niwas, Bhanwar Mata Road, Chhoti Sadari (c) Description of relevant asset / document See Point No.6 6. The brief reasons/evidence on the basis of which the AO reached to the conclusion that the relevant seized ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duction of capital by the partner with the total income of the assessee. In grounds 1 to 4 the Ld. DR argued and relied on the order of the impugned assessment order. The Ld. DR prayed to uphold the addition made by the Ld.AO. 9. The Ld.AR in argument stated that the capital was duly introduced by Shi Udaylal Anjana amount to Rs. 66 lakhs by withdrawing the capital in cash from M/s Sarvodaya Mining Co amount to Rs. 113,50,000/-. The Ld.AR respectfully relied on the order of PCIT vs Vaishnodevi Refoils and Solvex (2018) 89 taxmann.com 80 (Guj) and SLP filed by the revenue is also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 96 taxmann.com 469 (SC) where it was held that the capital introduced by the partner cannot be assessed as unexplained income in the hands of the firm if the partner is a tax paying entity. The Ld.AR respectfully relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The relevant paragraph 5.3 is extracted below: - "5.3 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Cash Imprest Account on 23.07.2016, partner of the firm Shri Udai Lal Anjana introduced cash of Rs. 66.00 lakhs in the firm in the form of Cash Imprest. The above amount was received by Shri Udai Lal Anjana from M/s. Sarvodaya Mining Services on 21.07.2016. The copy of cash book of Shri Udai Lal Anjana was also to show that on 21.07.2016, Shri Udai Lal Anjana received cash of Rs. 1,13,50,000/-. It is explained that similarly on 30.10.2016 & 20.02.2017, amounts of Rs. 12,00,000/- & Rs. 3,00,000/-, respectively, have been received from Shri Udai Lal Anjana. Rs. 3,00,000/- & Rs. 12,00,000/- have been paid to Shri Udai Lal Anjana on 25.09.2016 & 12.10.2016, respectively. The copy of Capital Account of Mis. Sarvodaya Mining Services in the books of Shri Udai Lal Anjana along with relevant page of Audited Balance Sheet of Shri Udai Lal Anjana as at 31.03.2017 to show that balance of Rs. 75226001.25 is outstanding as at 31.03.2017 and which includes above transactions. The capital account of Shri Udai Lal Anjana in the books of Mis. Sarvodaya Mining Services from to show that on 21.07.2016, Shri Udai Lal Anjana had withdrawn Rs. 11350000/- Also enclosed the relevant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5: 11. The revenue has also challenged the deletion of addition of Rs. 14,36,211/- for the amount debited in P&L Account which was duly adjusted in the closing stock. The Ld.DR in argument stated that the assessee has claimed Rs. 7,30,833/- related to conversion and other development expenses reflecting debit in the P&L Account and under the same head also the amount of Rs. 7,05,378/- considering both the accounts, which comes to Rs. 14,36,211/- wrongly debited in the P&L Account. The Ld. DR prayed for upholding the additions made by the Ld.AO. The Ld.AR stated that the said additions are made because of wrong understanding of the accounts. The assessee has debited this amount in P&L Account, but on the other hand, the assessee has added this amount in land and building in stock-intrade. The amount is reflecting in capitalization of Rs. 7,05,378/- and Rs. 7,30,833/. So, the closing stock is also inflated. Considering both the entries, its effect is tax neutral. The Ld.AR respectfully relied on the impugned appellate order and the relevant paragraph 6.3 is extracted below: - "6.3. I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st of conversion was added that above plots closing stock in the respective plots and shown as It is stated that all the above expenses has already been added back in profit and loss account and shown as Stock in Trade The explanation put forward by the appellant is considered and found to be acceptable on the facts of the case. The nomenclature given by the assessee does not make the expenditure allowable or disallowable. It is important to see the actual nature and its treatment in the books of accounts. Considering the reply of the appellant the expenditure has been included in the closing stock hence it is not capitalized directly. An expenditure incurred for the purpose of acquiring goods purchased for resale, consumable items, etc. is a revenue expenditure. For example, purchase of raw material in the case of manufacturing unit and purchase of merchandise meant for the purpose of resale. At the end of the year, closing stock and opening stock of these items adjusted to match cost with revenue for calculating profit. Therefore, the addition made by the AO is not found to be sustainable and deleted. The ground of appeal is treated as allowed." 12. ....