TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 318
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to be quashed. 3. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 59,18,00,000/- u/s 69A by erroneously holding that assessee is the owner of amount of this year received in M/s IFAMA Builders & Developers Private Limited & other entities and treating the same as unexplained money of the appellant. 4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the orders passed by Ld. AO and then by Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 5. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same." 3. The Ld. Counsel at the outset submitted that the AO made addition u/s.69A in all three assessment years i.e. 2015-16 and 2016-17 as protective assessment and the addition was made substantively for the A.Y. 2017-18. In other words the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that same addition has been made in all the three assessment years u/s.69A of the Act which is nothing but double ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard was afforded by the respondent. Submission on these Grounds: 1. Through this ground, appellant has challenged the initiation. continuing and then concluding the impugned assessment u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961 as the Ld. A.O had issued the notice u/s 148 of the Ir Act without applying his mind and even without applying principal of natural justice. 2. The Ld. A.O. had made addition of Rs. 59.18 Crore on the fact that assessee was director in a company namely IFAMA Builders & Developers Private Limited, a company who had committed fraud with its investors. The extracts of assessment order is as under: "8. In the case as per information available with the Department, Shri Jagmohan Singh Bedi, PAN: AOPPB6368F has received Rs. 59,18,00,000/- in M/s IFAMA Builders and Developers Pvt Ltd (PAN: AACC19776Q) from 636 investors as per report filed by Resolution Professional in National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and also took money from investors and neither give property in return nor the money back. M/s IFAMA Builders and Developers Put is a Private incorporated on 21 February 2008. The company is involved in building completion including activities ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....17. Copy annexure-2. With the intention to make fraud with its customers, promoter of the employer company Earth Infrastructure Limited had appointed the AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED as on 25.07.2016 (AY 2017-assessee as a manager in a group company namely "IFAMA BUILDERS 18). Copy of master data available on MCA portal enclosed as annexure herewith. This is to bring into your kind attention that even after appointed as manager in IFAMA, assessee was engaged in his executive related work in Earth Infrastructure Limited and drawing salary from there only. He was never engaged in any business/ financial activity of IFAMA at any point of time during his employment in Earth Infrastructure Limited. Further. All the promoters of the Earth Infrastructure Limited and other Group companies are already into the Jail for well-known fraud committed with the various customers and employees of the company as well. Furthermore, in the absence of any specific information, Ld. AO had made addition of 59.18 Crore in all three assessment years. Infact, the same amount had been assessed in the various assessees who were executive level employees in the Earth Infrastructure....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... v.Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Section 68, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Cash credit (Revision) Assessment year 2015-16 and 2016-17-Assessee engaged in trading of cloth, filed his return under section 44AD On basis of information from Bureau of Investigation, Commercial taxes, that there were certain deposits in bank account of assessee in name of his proprietary concern, Assessing Officer reopened assessment in both assessment years Assessee submitted that he had not opened any of Bank accounts and that might have been done by some unknown person by using fake identity of Assessing Officer was not satisfied with submissions of assessee and he was of view that said sum was to be treated as unaccounted sales of assessee and he assumed this figure as turnover of assessee and estimated profit at 8% and estimated unexplained investment - Appeal was filed against said assessment order Meanwhile, Additional Commissioner forwarded a proposal to CIT for initiating proceedings under section 263 against assessee CIT issued a notice under section 263 and observed that alleged credit of sales ought to be treated as une....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oney during the relevant period and infact, he was just an employee of Earth Infrastructure Limited since 2012 till March-2017 and drawing salary of Rs. 20,000 from this company only and with the intention to defraud the investors/Government/other stakeholders, management of Earth infrastructure Limited had appointed him as a manager in a company known as M/s IFAMA Builders & Developers Private Limited with effect from 25.07.2016. The amount received in the IFAMA Builders & Developers Private Limited & other entities could not at all have been held as unexplained money in the hands of assessee taxable u/s 69A. the Submissions on this Ground: 1. Through this ground, the appellant has challenged an addition of Rs. 59.18 Crores made by the Ld. AO u/s 68A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The background of this addition is that the appellant was an employee of Earth Infrastructure Limited from the year 2012 till Feb 2017. With the intention to make fraud with various stakeholders the promoter of the company had appointed the appellant as manager in a group company namely IFAMA Builders & Developers Private Limited as on 25.07.2016. Just because of this, Ld. AO.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In the present case, the appellant had not been found the owner of any money, bullion or other valuable article. 7. The making of addition u/s 69A in respect of advance above referred is erroneous due to the following counts: a. The appellant had not received any amount or sum or any anything from anything. b. There was not even single suspicious transaction in the bank statement of the appellant identified by the Ld. AO towards which appellant unable to provide explanations. c. The appellant had not been found of any assets by the Ld. AO towards which appellant was unable to provide any explanations. n this situation, addition u/s 69A cannot be made in respect of advance received from customers for sale of goods to be delivered in future. For this proposition, we rely upon the ratio of following judgements: For this proposition, relied on the following judgements i. [2024] 163 taxmann.com 115 (Ahmedabad Trib.) IN THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH 'SMC' Sakina Ahmedali Kantavala v. Income-tax Officer IT Appeal No. 41 (AHD.) OF 2024 [Assessment Year 2017-18) MAY 28, 2024 Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexpla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m 115 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) IN ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH 'SMC' Sakina Ahmedali Kantavala v. Income-tax Officer IT Appeal No. 41 (AHD.) OF 2024 (Assessment Year 2017-18) MAY 28, 2024 section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained moneys Assessment year 2017-18-Assessee, engaged in embroidery and art work for over 40 years, earned below taxable income limit and did not file income returns During demonetization, assessee deposited certain sum in joint bank accounts In response to a section 142(1) notice, assessee filed return, explaining deposits as personal savings and cash from her taxpayer brothers Assessing Officer passed an order under section 144, and made addition under Section 69A r.w.s 115BBE On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld half addition, citing insufficient explanation It was noted that deposit of certain sum was from maturity of fixed deposits - Additionally, sum added to income of assessee's brother, was same amount deposited in their joint bank account Whether in view of said facts, Commissioner (Appeals) was not correct in upholding half of assessment in hands of assessee u/s.69A Held, yes Whether therefore, entire addition made by Assessing O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uly accounted for in cash book and audited bank accounts and that no other conclusive proof can be given by assessee Whether in view of such concurrent finding of fact. impugned addition uns to be deleted-Held, yes (Porn 6. In the light of above facta, circumstances and legal position, it is prayed that the present ground of the appellant may please be allowed. Ground No. 5,6 & 7: General and consequential in nature. In the light of above facts, circumstances, legal position and submission, it is prayed that the appeal of the appellant may please be allowed. We shall be highly obliged." 6. The Ld. CIT(A) however, sustained the addition not only in the assessment year 2017-18 but also sustained the very same addition for the Assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) objected for the addition of Rs. 59,18,00,000/- made u/s. 69A stating that assessee was only employee of the company name M/s. IFAMA Builders and Developers Private Limited and all the transactions have happened in the company and assessee is merely a employee. However, it appears that the AO treated the deposit received from the investors as unexplain....