TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 1452
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2009-10 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on issue of unsecured loans holding that no incriminating material was found in search on this issue without appreciating that first proviso to section 153A clearly mandated AO to assess or re-assess total income or each year falling within section 153A(1)(a)? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, while concluding the assessment following the notice issued under section 153A(1)(a) of the Act, is it necessary that any incriminating material ought to have been unearthed in the search under section 132 of the Act to make any additions to the returns filed by the assessee following notice under section 153A(1)(a)? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,55,00,000/-. On issue of unsecured loans without appreciating that assessee had not proved genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of lenders in so much that interest-free unsecured loans taken from Raju Barter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ii) Abhishree Corporate parl Individual Commercial Unit iii) Abhishree Adroit Commercial Complex iv) Abhiree Residency-III Residential Plot Scheme v) Abhishree Orchad Residential unit scheme at village kolat vi) Abhishree Ecostead Residential Plot scheme at Unali which got abandoned due to the Government Policy. 4.1 The assessee was subject to search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act which was carried out at its business premises dated 4 December 2014 and subsequent dates. As a result of search, an electronic data was seized from the office of the assessee, containing the booking details of various projects, documented sale price, member description etc as detailed under: Sr. No Name of the file Sheet Remarks 1. Member Details.xls Sale Deed Details of members and sale Deeds Executed of Abhishree Corporate part on 30.09.2013 2. Member Details.xls Corporate Details of members and sale deeds executed of Abhishree corporate park 3. Member Details/xls Orchard I Details of members of Abhishree Orchard Sector-I as on 18.06.2013 4 Member Details.xls Orchard II Detai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de letter dated 20th December 2016 made submission before the AO that most of the loan creditors are assessed with the office of the same AO and the relevant documents were already available with the concerned AO. Thus, there cannot be raised any doubt with respect to the identity, creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transactions. 5.3 The assessee also contended that all the loans were received through the banking channel which were supported based on the confirmation wherever available, income tax returns. Thus, no doubt can be raised on such loans received by it in different assessment years. 5.4 It was also pointed out by the assessee that the regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Act has already been carried out and all the relevant details of the loan parties such as creditworthiness, genuineness of transaction and the proof of identity were furnished. 5.5 The assessee further submitted that there were many parties which have given loan to Shri Atul Shah & his related entities such as Rajshah Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Deesa Tie-up Ltd., Three C Survey Pvt. Ltd. and Neminath Traders Pvt. Ltd. and these parties were also assessed under the same j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an amount of Rs. 12.55 crores was added to the total income of the assessee in the year under consideration. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT(A). 7. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that during the year it has received unsecured loan of Rs. 12.55 crores from four parties detailed as under: 1. Adi Corporation Rs. 2 Crores 2. Rajesh Enterprises Rs. 6.05 Crores 3. Labdhi Finance Rs. 2 Crores 4. Saravshanti Properties Pvt Ltd. Rs. 2.5 crores 7.1 The assessee claimed that all the amount of loan were received through banking channel which can be verified form the bank statement and ledger account furnished during the assessment proceeding, besides the copy of confirmation and PAN which were also furnished during the assessment proceedings. 7.2 It was further submitted that the major amount of loan was received from the parties namely M/s Rajesh Enterprise and Labdhi Finance which belongs to barter group alias Shri Atul Hiralal Shah. Both the parties fall under the jurisdiction of same AO, where the appellant assessee has been assessed and both these parties were also subject to proceedings under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment proceedings also, the AO has not brought on record any incriminating material in respect of addition made by the AO for unsecured Ioan received during the year under consideration from the aforesaid four parties and therefore as the regular assessment order was already passed for A.Y. 2009-10 u/s, 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.11.2011 and it got concluded before the date of search in the case of the appellant on 04.12.2014 and there was no incriminating material found during the course of search proceedings, such concluded assessment cannot be disturbed by the Assessing Officer for making an addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act in suspects Ioan received during the year under consideration from the aforesaid parties aggregating to "Rs. 12,55,00,0007-. The appellant has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr. CIT-4 vis Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd [2017] 387 ITR 529, other High Courts and Hon'ble Ahmedabad Tribunal as well as other Tribunals in its written submission filed during the course of appeal hearing. The appellant also contended that the said legal contention was also taken up....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Holdings (P) Ltd. (255 ITR 573) viii) Gujarat High Court in case of Dharmadev Finance in 43 taxmann.com 395 42 taxmann.com ix) Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Pratapbhai Virjibhai Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer [2014] 45 taxmann.com 151 x) Hon'ble Gujarat High court in case of CIT Vs. Apex Therm Packaging (P.) Ltd. [2014] 42 taxmann.com 473 (Gujarat) xi) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of income tax- Dwarkadhish Investment (P.) Ltd.[2010] 194 TAXMAN 43 (DELHI) xii) CIT vs. Winstral Petrochemicals P. Ltd., 330 ITR 603 (Del.) xiii) CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Capital P. Ltd., 330 ITR 298 (Del.) xiv) Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of PCIT Vs. D & H Enterprises [2016] 72 taxmann.com 9i xv) Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Crystal Networks (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax [2013] 35 taxmann.com 432 (Calcutta) xvi) The Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Orissa Corporation P, Ltd. (159 ITR 78} As the facts of this case are identical to the facts of the above mentioned case laws the additions of Rs. 12,55,00,000/- made by the AO are deleted. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....positor and creditworthiness of the depositor were already on the assessment records of the AO. The AO on Page 99 of the assessment order, stated the details of M7s. Labdhi Finance PAN and returned income of for A.Y. 2009"-10 for an amount of Rs. 17,58,3807-. Therefore, the identity depositor and creditworthiness is proved from the total income filed by M/s. Labdhi Finance which proves genuineness of the unsecured loan received by the appellant for an amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- during the year under consideration. M/s. Labdhi Finance is prop concern of Shri Atul H. Shah, in whose hands, the AO himself had made additions of more than Rs. 800 crore for AY 2008-09 which prove identity, genuineness & creditworthiness. Hence, the addition made by the AO for an amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan received from M/s. Labdhi Finance is not justified and the same is hereby deleted. 4.2.2, That in respect of unsecured loan received during the year under consideration for an amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- from M/s. Adi Corporation, the AO has stated on Page 99 of the assessment order, the details of PAN, returned income for A.Y. 2009-10 at Rs. 6,84,700/- an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the learned CIT-A, the revenue is in appeal before us. The assessee has also preferred the CO. The revenue is in appeal against the deletion of the addition made by the learned CIT-A for Rs. 12,55,00,000/- whereas the assessee CO in favor of the decision of learned CIT-A for Rs. 12,55,00,000/-. 10. The relevant objection raised by the assessee in its CO No. 64/Ahd/2019 reads as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent has rightly held that "as the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was rendered by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 30.11.2011 before the date of search in the case of the Respondent on 04.12.2014 and the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 has got concluded before the date of search and therefore, in absence of any incriminating material and/or seized material found during the course of search proceedings in respect of unsecured loan received during the year under consideration, the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act for an amount of Rs. 12,55,00,000/~ is not justified". 2. The Ld. CIT (A), on merit, after carefu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to the completed assessment proceedings. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Saumya Construction (supra) has held that there cannot be any addition of regular items shown in the books of accounts until and unless there were certain materials of incriminating nature found during the course of search. The word incriminating has not been defined under the Act but it refers to those materials/ documents/ information which were collected during the search proceedings and not produced in the original assessment proceedings. Simultaneously, these documents had bearing on the total income of the assessee. Now coming to the case, we note that there was no incriminating document relating to unsecured loan found during the search which would have made basis for the addition in the assessment. 12.2 At the time of hearing, the learned DR has not brought anything on record contrary to the finding of the learned CIT (A). Accordingly, we hold that there cannot be any addition of the regular items which were disclosed by the assessee in the regular books of acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll these ingredients which had to be satisfied by the assessee. Mere furnishing of the particulars was not enough. " 13.1 Now first we proceed to understand the identity of the party. The identity of the party refers existence of such party which can be proven based on evidences. As such the identity of a party can be established by furnishing the name, address and PAN detail, bank details, ITR etc. 13.2 The next stage comes to verify the genuineness of the transaction. Genuineness of transaction refers what has been asserted is true and authentic. A genuine transaction must be proved to be genuine in all respect not merely on a piece of a paper. The documentary evidences should not be a mask to cover the actual transaction or designed in way to present the transaction as true but same is not. Genuineness of transaction can be proved by submitting confirmation of the parties along the details of mode of transaction but merely showing transaction carried out through banking channel is not sufficient to prove the genuineness. As such the same should also be proved by circumstantial surrounding evidences as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Durga Prasad More ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ajesh Enterprise Pvt Ltd and Labdhi Finance (a proprietary concern of Shri Atul Hiralal Shah), these two parties were also subject to the same search proceeding and subject to the proceedings under section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the identity of these two parties were proved beyond doubt. The assessee has furnished copy of confirmation from these parties, transaction was carried out through banking channel, and other details such as books of account financial statement etc. were available before the AO. The AO has not pointed out any defect in these materials, thus the genuineness of transaction was also got fulfilled. These two parties have declared substantial income regularly in the return and also having fund in the form of capital, reserved & surplus. Thus, the credit worthiness was also established. 13.7 Likewise, the amount of Rs. 2 crores credited from M/s Adi Corporation, we find that copy of PAN and contra ledger confirmation was available before the AO. The amount was taken due to temporary shortage of fund which was paid back in the year under consideration itself. Once the amount received through banking channel and repayment of the same was also made through ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Respondent has rightly held that "as the assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 was rendered by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 30.11.2011 before the date of search in the case of the Respondent on 04.12.2014 and the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 has got concluded before the date of search and therefore, in absence of any incriminating material and/or seized material found during the course of search proceedings in respect of unsecured loan received during the year under consideration, the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act for an amount of Rs. 12,55,00,000/~ is not justified". 2. The Ld. CIT (A), on merit, after carefully considering the facts of the case,' various details submitted by the Respondent to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the depositor parties namely Adi Corporation, Rajshah Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., Labdhi Finance and Sarvashanti well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent, has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 12,55,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 3. Your respondent craves right to add, amend, alter, modify, subst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oans taken from Raju Barter entities (Rajshah Enterprises Pvt Ltd & Nemintah Trades Pvt Ltd) were found to be unexplained and were accommodation entries sourced from Shirish Chandrakant Shah and other accommodation entry providers, that Adi Corporation. Kalpesh Patel, Shreeji exports and Ajay Mahendrakumar Shah had meager or nil incomes, and also that, considering their names reflected also reflected in unaccounted cash transactions in seized data. 'CCCCC' sheet, genuineness was not proved. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A)'s order is erroneous in holding that amount received from A/ay Mahendrakumar Shah was advance for land/project since it is inconsistent with facts on record as annexure-IV of assessee's Tax audit report and page No. 132 of assessee's own submissions dated 26/10/2010. received by AC on 27/10/2016. clearly reflect that this amount was 'unsecured loan'- 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)'s order is erroneous in holding that amount of Rs. 4,08,00,000/-received from Ajay Mahendrakumar Shah was not to be added back u/s 68 just b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n made by the barter group on account of such land. 19.3 Further, the documents seized from the premises of the directors contain information like KAKA as well as Land Clearance etc. at unali. This place is near to the place of Ecosted project of the assessee. Another seized document also refer the development issue of unali land. Therefore, the AO has taken a view that the cash payment of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- recorded on above discussed page is also true and correct. The AO accordingly treated the sum of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- as unaccounted receipt of the assessee for the AY 2010-11. 20. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the addition made by the AO on account of unaccounted cash receipt from M/s Neminath Traders Pvt Ltd. amounting to Rs. 1,60,00,000/-, on the basis of seized page bearing No. 4 of annexure A-9 seized from the premises of Shri Ashit Vora, who is neither the director of the company nor the employee of the assessee company. Therefore, it cannot have any evidential value while framing the assessment in the case of assessee. Likewise, the name of the assessee is nowhere appearing in the impugned seized document. Similarly, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tement of Shri Ashit vora is not relevant on this issue. Thus, in view of the above and after making reference to the judgments relied by the appellant, it was held by the ld. CIT-A that the addition made by the AO on account of SEZ project in the hands of assessee was not justified. 23. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the revenue is in appeal before us. The assessee has also preferred the CO. The revenue is in appeal against the deletion of the addition made by the learned CIT(A) Rs. 1,60,00,000/- whereas the assessee in CO has supported deletion of addition by CIT(A) of Rs 1,60,00,000/- 24. The relevant objection raised by the assessee in its CO No. 65/Ahd/ 2019 reads as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case, submission of the appellant as well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent has rightly deleted, the addition of alleged cash receipts Rs. 1,60,00,000/- on account of difference of G.P while holding that keeping in view the factual position and the binding judgments, he has given the findings that addition made by the AO on the basis of loose paper Page No. 4 of Annexure A/9 is no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 19,08,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. 28. The assessee during the year under consideration has shown receipt of unsecured loan of Rs. 19,08,00,000/- from the different parties detailed as under: S. No. Name of creditor Amount in Rs. 1. Adi Corporation 2,00,00,000/- 2. Rajshah Ent Pvt Ltd 1,50,00,000/- 3. Kalpesh Patel 5,00,000/- 4. Neminath Traders Pvt Ltd 10,80,00,000/- 5. Sheerji Exports 75,00,000/- 6. Ajay Mahendrakumar Shah 4,08,00,000/- Total 19,08,00,000/- 29. The AO in the assessment framed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act treated same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act on the same basis as held in the AY 2009-10 and added to the total income of the assessee. 30. The aggrieved assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT(A) and reiterated its submission as made in the previous assessment year i.e. A.Y. 200910 that no material of incriminating nature was found during the course of search proceedings with regard to unsecured loan. The regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Act for the year under consideration has been completed by order dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e parties was not established is devoid of any merit. 31. The learned CIT (A) after considering the facts in totality deleted the addition made by the AO on legal ground as well as on facts. 32. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, he revenue are in appeal before us. The assessee has also preferred the CO. The revenue is in appeal against the deletion of the addition made by the learned CIT-A for Rs. 19,08,00,000/- whereas the assessee in CO supported the decision of learned CIT-A. 33. The relevant objection raised by the assessee in its CO No. 65/Ahd/2019 reads as under: 2. The Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent has rightly held. Jhat "as the assessment order for A.Y. 2010-11 was rendered by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 08.03.2013 before the date of search in the case of the Respondent on\ 04.12.2014 and the assessment for A.Y. 2010-11 has got concluded before the date of search and therefore, in absence of any incriminating material and/or seized material found during the course of search proceedings in respect of unsecured loan received during the year ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ical finding that the no incriminating material was found with respect to the unsecured loan. The learned DR before us has not been able to controvert the finding of the learned CIT(A). Thus, considering the fact that the year under consideration is a completed assessment year, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned CIT(A). 36. Coming to the merit of the case. At the outset we note that in case of loan parties namely Adi Corporation, Kalpesh Patel, Sherji Exports and Ajaykumar Mahnedra Kumar Shah the loan amount were returned back in a couple of days or in week time or so through the banking channel. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High court in case of CIT Vs. Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360 and also in case of CIT vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji reported in 42 taxmann.com 251 no addition can be made under section 68 of the Act. Thus, in view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) as far as deletion made by him with regard to loan received from the above mentioned parties i.e. Adi Corporation, Kalpesh Patel, Sherji Exports and Ajaykumar MahnedraKumar. 36.1 Moving forward to issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat addition made by the AO on the basis of loose paper Page No. 4 of Annexure A/9 is not found justified and hence deleted. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent has rightly held. Jhat "as the assessment order for A.Y. 2010-11 was rendered by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 08.03.2013 before the date of search in the case of the Respondent on\ 04.12.2014 and the assessment for A.Y. 2010-11 has got concluded before the date of search and therefore, in absence of any incriminating material and/or seized material found during the course of search proceedings in respect of unsecured loan received during the year under consideration, the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act for an amount of Rs. 19,08,00,000/- is not justified". 3. The Ld. CIT (A), on merit after carefully considering the fats of the case, various details submitted by the Respondent to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the unsecured loan parties namely (i) Adi Corporation, Rajshah Enterprise Pvt. Ltd, (iii) Kalpesh Patel, (iv) Neminath Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of Mr. Anil Shah, Mr. Atul Shah and Mr. Sanket Vora as a dumb document in absence of any incriminating material being found from the office premises of the appellant company and residential premises of directors of the appellant company at the time of search. 3(a) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in estimating the net profit margin at 20% worked out at Rs. 3,04,57,650/- out of unaccounted cash receipts of the project Abhishree Ecostead at Rs. 15,22,88,250/- (b) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to consider the fact that no net profit margin can be estimated in respect of abandoned project in view of the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Calcutta Co. Ltd vs CIT 37 ITR 1 and the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of Shivalik Buildwell (P) Ltd (2014) 220 taxmann.com 3 (Guj.) (c) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not considering the claim of the appellant company to give set off of trading loss of Rs. 17,42,52,1247- for the development cost incurred for Abhishree Ecostead project, which has been abandoned due to the Government policy and the construction cost incurred by the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he fact that the seized Annexure A/1 Page No. 1 to 6 found and seized from the possession of Shri Asit Vora, the provisions of section 132(4A) r.w.s 292C is applicable in the case of Shri Asit Vora and not in the case of appellant. The appellant reserves its right to add, amend, alter or modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove either before on at the time of hearing. 41. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee in ground Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the order of the AO in part by sustaining the addition @ 20% of the alleged unaccounted cash receipt from various projects of Rs. 55,03,91,240/-instead of deleting the same in entirety. 42. As a result of search at Barter Group, as discusses above an excel sheet along with other documents bearing named as "CCCCC.XLS" were found from the residence of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and Shri Sanket Vora Shah which was containing the unaccounted financial transactions along with the party name and the date. The financial transactions were relating to the projects of the assessee. 42.1 Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and Shri Atul Hiralal Shah are holding 60% of the shares of the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21-11-2016 issued at the end of the assessment which was getting time barred i.e. assessment was completed as on 31-12-2016. As such, the time to the assessee for making the reply was given only for short period which was not sufficient enough considering the complexity involved in the dispute. 44.4 The assessee has also requested the AO to provide the opportunity of cross-examination of Shri Anil Shah and Shri Sanket Shah whose statements recorded by the searched team which was necessary for being confronted before using such statement against it (the assessee). 44.5 The assessee further submitted that it has already made a disclosure voluntarily for certain amount of income pertaining to the year under consideration and for the AY 2012-13 in the course of the survey operation conducted under section 133A of the Act dated 24th and 25th October 2011. The details of the project wise and year wise voluntary disclosure made by the assessee stand as under: Name of the project A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2012-13 Total Abhishree Avenue 1,25,00,000 1,00,00,000 2,25,00,000 Abhishree Corporate Park 1,68,00,000 1,00,00,000 2,68,00,000 Abhishree Residency -I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ii. Without prejudice to the above, furthermore, the entire amount recorded in the seized document cannot be taken as income, treating the same as on money. As such, the element of profit in such unaccounted on money can only be considered as the income for determining the taxable profit of the assessee. * The Orchard project i. Based on the seized excel sheet namely "CCCCC.xls., found from the premises of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and E-data file containing sale deed/ Members detail xls found from the premises of the assessee and document bearing page Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 37 of annexure A-25, seized from premises of Shri Sanket Shah Vora and 55 to 67 of annexure A-2 seized from the residence of Shri Ashit Vora, relating to the orchard project, containing the financial transactions, the assessee with respect to such project submitted that the gross receipt as per the books of accounts stand at Rs. NIL only. Besides the above, the assessee has already voluntarily disclosed an income of Rs. 3.05 crores relating to the impugned project in the assessment year 2012-13 in consequence to the survey operation carried out in the year 2011 in order to buy the peace of mind. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....NUE i. Based on the seized excel sheet namely "CCCCC.xls. found from the premise of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and member detail .xls E-data seized from the premises of the assessee relating to the Abhishree Avenue project, containing the financial transactions, the assessee with respect to such project submitted that the gross receipt as per the books of accounts stand at Rs. 34,09,52,713.00 only. Besides the above, the assessee has already voluntarily disclosed an income of Rs. 1.25 crores and 1.05 crores relating to the impugned project in the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 in consequence to the survey operation carried out in the year 2011. ii. Without prejudice to the above, furthermore, the entire amount recorded in the seized document cannot be taken as income, treating on money. As such, the element of profit in such unaccounted on money can only be considered as the income for determining the taxable profit of the assessee. * Assessee's submission with respect to other proposed additions of the AO i. The assessee with respect to financial transactions recorded in the seized documents found during the search at the premises of other pers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sactions for the receipt of Rs. 3,54,12,500/- recorded in the seized documents bearing page No. 75 to 124 of annexure A-16 were not matching with the electronic data found from the office of the assessee and sale trial filed by the assessee. The AO treated the same as on money received by the assessee in the financial year 2012-13 corresponding to assessment year 2013-14. ii. There were also discovered seized documents from the office premises of the assessee bearing page numbers 21-22 of Annexure A-3, representing the receipt of cash of Rs.1 lakh from SIC, pertaining to the financial year 2012-13 corresponding to assessment year 2013 -14. The AO treated the same as on money received by the assessee. Finally, the AO aggregated the amount of Rs. 3,55,12,500.00 (3,54,12,500 + 1,00,000/-) and treated the same as on money of the assessee. * For the AY 2014-15 i. Likewise, there were documents seized from the residence of Shri Sanket Vora bearing page numbers 1 to 6 of annexure A- 2, containing the details of booking rate of the plot i.e. Rs. 5500 per square feet and details of receipt of payment in cash as well as in bank along with the outstanding amount. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jeet Sen; Aditya Sen, Purab Vyas) 17.72.750/- 30 509 6000 Jitendra Praveen Jain 50.00.000/- 31 703 6000 Vipul Mehta 25.51.000/- Total 1,41.57,800/- ii. The above cash receipt was not recorded in the regular books of accounts which are pertaining to the financial year 2014-15 corresponding to assessment year 2015-16. Accordingly, the same was treated by the AO as on money received by the assessee. iii. It was also observed by the AO based on the seized documents that the price recorded in the documents was less than the amount mentioned in the cash working sheet as discussed above. Accordingly, the AO worked out the different amount of cash receipt with respect to the project namely Abhrisheer Adroit pertaining to different assessment years which was not recorded in the books of accounts as elaborated above. Finding of the AO on the Abhishree Corporate Park For the AY 2011-12 i. As per the seized documents marked as ccccc.xls found from the premises of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah, the AO found that the assessee has received the element of cash with respect to the impugned project amounting to Rs. 5,74,75,000.00 du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it Vora containing the detail of transaction related to plot Nos. 162, 168, 161, 164, 165, 168. Such documents contain the detail of cash and cheque receipt from the customers who booked such plots. On such seized documents, the cheque is coded by cheque in Gujarati and C denotes the cash. These documents contain the cash receipt from the customers as detailed under Flat No. Name of customer Amount of cash receipts (Rs) FY of receipt 162 Dr- Saheb 25,00,000 2011-12 168 Banwarilal 58,00,000 164 Aarti Kainth Madhuk 35,00,000 165 Manjubala 17,00,000 61 Nilansha Tiwari 1,25,000 Total 1,36,25,000 iii. The above cash receipt was not recorded in the regular books of accounts which were pertaining to the financial year 2011-12 corresponding to assessment year 2012-13. Accordingly, the same was treated by the AO as on money received by the assessee. iv. All the aforesaid entries were pertaining to the financial year 2011-12 and therefore the AO treated the same amount of Rs. 1,87,72,100/-( 51,47,100/- + 136,25,000/-as on money received by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he parties recorded in the seized documents were also matching with the sales trial balance filed by the assessee. However the detail of this project is not available in the E-data seized from the office of the assessee. It was also observed by the AO that the price mention in the documents was less than the price recorded in the seized documents which was actually charged from the customers. Accordingly the AO treated the sum of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- as on money received by the assessee which was not recorded in the books of accounts. * Finding of the AO on the project of Abhishree Avenue Project For the AY 2011-12 i. As per the seized documents marked as ccccc.xls found from the premises of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah, the AO found that the assessee has received the element of cash with respect to the impugned project amounting to Rs. 65,17,900/-during the period from 07 April 2010 to 26 August 2010 which was not disclosed in the books of accounts. The name of the parties recorded in the seized documents were matching with the electronic data recovered from the premises of the assessee as well as from the sale trial balance filed by the assessee. It was also observed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es as provided under the provisions of section 132(4A) read with section 292C of the Act until and unless some tangible connection is established with the assessee. 46.2 The seized materials were supplied by the AO dated 9 December 2016 and 15 December 2016 whereas the assessment has been framed dated 30 December 2016 which evidences that the assessment has been framed without proper application of mine and verification of the relevant records. As such the AO has made addition in arbitrary manner, unrealistic and high-pitched with biased mind. 46.3 Without prejudice to the above, it was also submitted that there was survey proceedings carried out at the premises of the assessee dated 24th and 25th October 2011 wherein no document of incriminating nature was found. But the assessee in order to buy the peace of mind, avoid time-consuming litigation and energy, has voluntarily disclosed the income of Rs.12 crores with respect to different projects pertaining to the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 which constitute approximately 25% of the alleged on money. The details of the same has been given on page 8 of CIT-A order which has been reproduced somewhere in previous paragrap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able. 47. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. But the ld. CIT-A rejected the contention of the assessee regarding the cross examination of the parties namely Shri Anil Hiralal Shah, Sanket Vora and Ashit Vora by observing as under: 1) The excel sheet found from the possession of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and Atul Hiralal Shah as both of them hold 60% stake in the appellant company. Such sheet contains the project details of the appellant, unaccounted cash receipt from the member of various projects. The appellant has not placed on record any evidence to establish that the details contain in the sheet does not belong to it or it has not received such cash. Thus, such sheet is required to be considered in case of appellant. 2) Further, there is no need of cross examination as the addition made by the AO on the basis of seized documents and not on the basis of statement of any person. 47.1 Further, the Ld. CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee in respect of unaccounted cash receipt worked out by the AO cannot be subject to tax as a whole. As such, only reasonable profit should be taxed after placing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d been deposited m bank accounts or given to directors/their family/HUFs for their own use and that assessee had not produced the names, other details and purpose for which 80% of unaccounted cash receipts were diverted. 50. The relevant Cross objections raised by the assessee in its CO No. 67/Ahd/2019 for the AY 2011-12 are extracted as under: 1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,38,71,330/- out of the total unaccounted cash receipts of Rs. 55,03,91,240/-. On facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) out to have deleted the entire addition of Rs. 55,03,91,240/-, 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,02,40,000/- being 20% of net profit margin estimated on Rs. 10,12,00,000/- on account of other transactions pertaining to project. On facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) out to have deleted the entire addition of Rs. 10,12,00,000/- 3. Your Respondent craves right to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of cross objection. 51. The learned AR before us filed 24 paper books running fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not belonging to the assessee. ii. Whether the documents used by the AO for the purpose of the addition were dumb documents and therefore no addition is warranted. iii. Whether the unaccounted cash transactions recorded in the seized documents be subject to tax on gross basis. iv. Whether the income disclosed by the assessee during the survey operation in the year 2011 can be set off against the income determined in the search proceedings. 52.1 With respect to the 1st question as discussed above, we note that the documents being CCCCC.xls excel sheet containing the transactions of the different projects of the assessee as elaborated above was recovered from the premises of two individuals being Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and Sanket Vora. Admittedly Shri Anil Hirala shah and his brother Atul Hiralal Shah were the shareholder to the tune of 60% in the assessee company, put together. Thus, it cannot be said that these persons were not connected with the assessee. To this effect the AO in his assessment order on page 2 & 3 has made the following observation: Sr. No. Name of the person in whose case seized Relation with SIPL Address of premises from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l to assessee by 09/12/2016 after verifying from assessee's returns u/s.153A that transaction mentioned in such documents had not bee disclosed by assessee) and had granted liberal adjournment in between. 52.3 A question also strikes to our mind whether the AO was under the obligation to provide the opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee with respect to the data in the form of CCCCC.xls found from the premises of the parties as discussed above. In this connection we note that Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and Shri Atul Hiralal Shah both being the shareholders of the assessee company and that too holding major stake, thus in such facts and circumstances to our mind, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice for not providing the opportunity of cross-examination. Thus, we hold that the documents found from the premises of the parties as discussed above can be used against the assessee. Thus the 1st question is answered against the assessee and in favor of the revenue. 52.4 The 2nd question arises whether the documents found from the premise of the 3rd party were representing the dumbed documents. In this regard we note that the documents found from the 3rd p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... undisclosed income and not the undisclosed receipts. During the course of hearing the assessee had brought evidence on record in regard to payments made for expenses incurred on the cost of construction for which necessary deduction had to be allowed. In any case, what can be taxed is the profit which could have been earned by the assessee on the alleged unaccounted receipts and not the entire amount. Further, the Assessing Officer had not brought any material on record that the assessee in fact had made any initial investment of Rs. 15 lakhs as alleged. In any case, even if it was assumed that the assessee did make an initial investment of Rs. 15 lakhs which was to be taxed under section 69C, the corresponding deduction would have to be allowed under section 37 as the investment was made in acquisition of business assets and as such, the amount spent was for the business of the assessee. Thus, what could be added as the undisclosed income of the assessee under section 158BC was a reasonable amount of profit which the assessee could have earned by charging 'on money' in respect of flats. The assessee had himself offered 8 per cent profit on the total receipts which should....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceived by the assessee for booking of flats/shops in "Vesu Project" is required to be assessed in its hand in all these years. 53.2 In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of learned CIT (A) and accordingly we uphold the same with the direction to take some percentage of profit for working out the income from the undisclosed business transactions. 53.3 The next controversy arises to determine the rate at which the profit has to be calculated from the undisclosed/ unaccounted business transactions. In this connection, we find that the tribunal in the group case of Greenfield Reality Pvt Ltd.(supra) involving identical facts and circumstances has adopted 8% of business receipts as income of the assessee. The relevant extract is reproduced as under: 17. Next question arose, what is the element of income involved in this on-money. On one hand, the assessee is showing income at 8%, on the other hand, the ld.CIT(A) is estimating it at 20%. It is pertinent to observe that section 144 of the Income Tax Act provides discretion in the AO to pass best judgment when an assessee failed to appear before him, and to submit requisite details. In other words....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udgment. We are conscious of the fact that in various authoritative pronouncements, it has been propounded that in making a best judgment assessment, the Assessing Officer must not act dishonestly or vindictively or capriciously. He must make, what he honestly believe to be a fair estimate of the proper figure of assessment and for this purpose he must be able to take into consideration, local knowledge, reputation of the assessee about his business, the previous history of the assessee or the similarly situated assessee. It is also pertinent to mention that judgment is a faculty to decide matter with wisdom, truly and legally. Judgment does not depend upon the arbitrary, caprice of an adjudicator, but on settled and invariably principles of justice. Thus, in a best judgment, even if, there is an element of guess work, it should not be a wild one, but shall have reasonable nexus to the available material and circumstances of each assessee. 20. During the course of hearing, we have confronted the ld.counsel for the assessee to show the basis for estimating income at 8%. Similarly, we have confronted the ld.CIT-DR as to how the figure of 20% should be taken up. The ld.counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....we direct the AO to take 8% of gross unaccounted cash receipt which was not accounted in the books of accounts as income of the assessee. Accordingly, there cannot be any separate addition for the undisclosed business transactions recorded in the seized documents. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 54. As regards the last question stated above, we note that the assessee has made voluntarily disclosure of income with respect to each project in the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13. There was nothing brought on record by the Revenue suggesting that the disclosure made by the assessee was not voluntarily and it was not connected with the projects carried out by the assessee in different assessment years as detailed in the preceding paragraph. Thus, we can safely conclude that the income offered during the survey operation can be set off against the determination of the income which is based on the seized documentary evidence. 54.1 For example, there was a survey operation in the case of the assessee wherein the assessee has made voluntarily disclosure of certain amount of money as incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ground No. 5 is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in estimating the net profit at 20% of unaccounted receipt of Rs. 1,87,72,100/ in respect project namely Abhishree Orchared. 56. This ground is not relevant for the year under consideration as it is related to AY 2012-13. Thus the same has been dealt in the appeal of the assessee pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13 Furthermore, the assessee also got the relief from the learned CIT-A and therefore the assessee is not aggrieved. Thus, no separate adjudication is required at this stage. Hence, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. 57. The issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 9 is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in estimating net profit at Rs. 2,02,40,000/- being 20% of Rs. 10,12,00,000/- in respect of other unaccounted cash receipt pertaining to Abhishree Avenue project as per seized documents found at the premises of Shri Ashit Vora. 58. There were documents seized from the premises of Shri Asit Vora bearing page numbers 1 to 6 of annexure A-1 which were containing the details of transaction related to Naminath Traders Pvt Ltd. and calculation of rate of various project of the assessee. The se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... transfer of the property in the name of M/s Neminath Traders Private Limited. However, the assessee has declared sale consideration from the property in the name of M/s Neminath traders Pvt Ltd amounting to Rs. 6,50,00,000/- only.. Therefore, the AO in view of the above treated the difference of Rs. 10,12,00,000/- (16,62,00,000/- - 6,50,00,000/-) as unaccounted income under section 69A of the Act and made the addition to the total income of the assessee. 59. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT-A. 60. The assessee before the learned CIT-A with respect to the addition of Rs.10,12,00,000/- under the provisions of section 69A of the Act submitted that the AO made addition by placing reliance on the documents bearing Nos. 1 to 6 seized from the premises of Shri Ashit Vora which contain the detail of transaction of Neminath Traders Pvt Ltd which is a company of barter group. The AO cannot draw any inference against the assessee on the basis of the documents seized from the third party who is not directly/ indirectly connected with the assessee. Further, the AO has failed to bring any cogent material to conclude that the transaction belongs to the assessee. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als available on record. It was alleged by the AO that assessee has made sales of the property to M/s Neminath Traders Pvt Ltd for a sum of Rs. 16.62 which is evident from the seized documents whereas the assessee has recorded the sales in the books of accounts at Rs. 6.50 crores only. Thus, the difference amounting to Rs.10.12 crores was added in the hands of the assessee by the AO which was restricted by the learned CIT-A to the tune of 20% of Rs.10.12 crores. In this connection we have perused the finding of the authorities below wherein it was alleged that the payment by the purchaser was made to the group companies/ the persons related to the assessee. As such there was no specific finding given by the authorities below suggesting that the money was received by the assessee. Furthermore, a doubt also arises about the payment made by the purchaser to the different parties associated with the assessee what transaction was recorded in the respective books of accounts or there can be a possibility that there was another transaction between them which was unconnected to the assessee. But at the same time it is also evident from the seized documents that the assessee has sold the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eleting the addition of Rs. 8,09,60,000/- being 80% of other unaccounted cash receipts without appreciating that these receipts had been deposited in bank accounts or given to directors/their family/HUFs for their own use and that assessee had not produced the names, other details and purpose for which 80% of such unaccounted cash receipts were diverted. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on issue of unsecured loans holding that no incriminating material was found in search on this issue without appreciating that first proviso to section 153A clearly mandates AO to assess or reassess total income of each year falling within section 153A(1)(a) 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without appreciating the fact that while concluding the assessment following the notice issued under Section 153A(1)(a) of the Act is it necessary that any incriminating material ought to have been unearthed in the search under Section 132 of the Act to make any additions to the returns filed by the assessee following notice under Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing survey proceedings. 69. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the Revenue has been adjudicated along with assessee's ground of appeal in IT(SS) No. 147/Ahd/2018 where we have decided the issue vide paragraphs Nos. 52 to 54 of this order against the Revenue. For detail discussion, please refer the aforementioned paragraph of this order. Hence the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 70. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground No. 3 is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition to the extent of 80% of the other unaccounted cash receipt pertaining to the project Abhishree avenue of Rs. 10,12,00,000.00 only. 71. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the revenue has been adjudicated along with assessee's ground of appeal in IT(SS) No. 147/Ahd/2018 where we have decided the issue vide paragraph No. 66 of this order against the Revenue. For detailed discussion, please refer the aforementioned paragraph of this order. Hence the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 72. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground Nos. 4 to 8 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the genuineness of the receipt of loan from these parties cannot be doubted. Further, the AO in the assessment himself has prepared a chart showing PAN of loan creditor and income declared by them for A.Y. 2009-10 to 2015-16. On perusal of the same, it can be seen that parties namely Satvindersing M Vasu, Satvindersing M Vasu HUF, Surendrakumar M. Vasu and Manjitsingh J Vasu were regularly filing return of income and has shown substantial taxable income. Thus, the identity and creditworthiness of these parties and genuineness of the transactions cannot be doubted. 76.1 The assessee with regard to the unsecured loan of Rs. 13.5 crore Rs. 10.3 crore and Rs. 80 Lakh from Neminath Traders Pvt. Ltd, Three C Survey Pvt Ltd and Deesha Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. submitted all these three parties are part of current search proceedings u/s 153A/153C of the Act and falling under the jurisdiction of the same AO. Therefore the identity of these parties got established beyond doubt. Further, it has discharged preliminary onus by furnishing ledger copy, confirmation copy, banks statement showing fund transferred through banking channel. The AO was having access to all the financial details of impugned p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....". 4. The Ld. CIT (A), on merit, after carefully considering the facts of the case, various details submitted by the Respondent to establish the identity of the depositor parties namely (i) Neminath Traders Pvt.Ltd, (ii) Three C Surveys Pvt.Ltd, (iii) Deesha Tie Up Pvt.Ltd, (iv) Shri Satvindersingh M. Vasu, (v) Satindersingh M. Vasu-HUF, (vi) Surendrakumar M. Vasu and (vii) Manjitsingh J. Vasu as well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent, has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 28,70,47,121/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission made by the Respondent has rightly held that the Respondent company has not paid interest to the three parties namely (i) Neminath Traders Pvt. Ltd, (ii) Three C Surveys Pvt. Ltd and (iii) Deesha Tie Up Pvt. Ltd and the addition on account of interest on such unsecured loan is not justified. In respect of Four entities of Vasu Family, the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the Respondent has paid interest to the four entities of Vasu Family after deducting the TDS and the AO in the assessment order has nowhere brought ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A). Thus, considering the fact that the year under consideration is a case of completed assessment year, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned CIT(A). 83. Coming to the merit of the case. At the outset we note that in case of loan parties namely Satvindersing M Vasu, Satvindersing M Vasu HUF, Surendrakumar M. Vasu and Manjitsingh J Vasu the loan amount were returned back in in the year under consideration along interest after deduction of TDS. Therefore, in light of judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High court in case of CIT Vs. Rohini Builders reported in 256 ITR 360 and also in case of CIT vs. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji reported in 42 taxmann.com 251, no addition can be made under section 68 of the Act. Thus, in view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) as far as deletion made by him with regard to loan from the above mentioned parties i.e. Satvindersing M Vasu, Satvindersing M Vasu HUF, Surendrakumar M. Vasu and Manjitsingh J Vasu. 83.1 Moving forward to issue of deletion of the addition by the learned CIT(A) on account of loan amount of Rs. 13.5 crores Rs. 10.30 crore and Rs. 80 lacs from the parties namely N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pertaining to project. On facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) out to have deleted the entire addition of Rs. 10,12,00,000/- 3. The Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent has rightly held that "as the assessment order for A.Y. 2011-12 was passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 25.02.2014 before the date of search in the case of the Respondent on 04.12.2014 and the assessment for A.Y. 2011-12 has got concluded before the date of search and therefore, in absence of any incriminating material and/or seized material found during the course of search proceedings in respect of unsecured loan received during the year under consideration, the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act for an amount of Rs. 28,70,47,12/- is not justified". 4. The Ld. CIT (A), on merit, after carefully considering the facts of the case, various details submitted by the Respondent to establish the identity of the depositor parties namely (i) Neminath Traders Pvt.Ltd, (ii) Three C Surveys Pvt.Ltd, (iii) Deesha Tie Up Pvt. Ltd, (iv) Shri Satvindersing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12,00,0000/- pertaining to the project Abhishree avenue. 88. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee has been adjudicated along with assessee's ground of appeal in IT(SS) No. 147/Ahd/2018 where we have decided the issue vide paragraphs No. 66 of this order partly in favour of the assessee. For detailed discussion, please refer the aforementioned paragraph of this order. Hence the ground raised by the assessee in the CO. is hereby partly allowed. 89. The issue raised by the assessee in objection Nos. 3 to 5 is that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 28,70,47,121/- in respect of unsecured loan and interest there on for Rs. 50,47,867/- only. 90. At the outset, we note that the assessee in the CO's Nos. 3 to 5 has supported the order of the learned CIT-A. Therefore, the same was not required to be adjudicated separately. As such, the objections raised by the assessee become infructuous. Accordingly, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 90.1 In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Now coming ITA No. 188/AHD/2018 an appeal by the Revenue for the AY 2012-13 91. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....commodation entries sourced from Shirish Chandrakant Shah and other accommodation entry providers, that for others, either confirmation or ITR was not filed or they had filed no/nil returns of income and also that, considering their names reflected also reflected in unaccounted cash transactions in seized data 'CCCCC' sheet genuineness was not proved. 6 Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs 31,85,24,318/- without appreciating that for unsecured loans including those from Raju Barter entities (Neminath Trades Pvt Ltd. Three C Surveys Pvt Ltd Deesha tie-up Lid) since the transaction was unexplained both in hands of creditor as well as assessee, the addition in both cases is justified in view of case laws in Trinetra Commerce & Trade (P.) Ltd [2016] 75 taxmann.com 70 (Calcutta) and Jagmohan Ram Ram Chandra [2004] 141 Taxman 574 (Allahabad) as sections 68 & 69 are deeming provisions and effect to both sections has to be given separately m hands of both creditor and assessee. 7- Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the addition of Rs. 1,87,72,1007-. 96. Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below as favorable to them. 97. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset we note that we have already adjudicated the identical issue in the case of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 in IT(SS)A No. 147/AHD/2018 vide paragraph number 52 to 54 of this order partly in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The relief was given to the assessee on the reasoning that the assessee has made voluntarily disclosure which was eligible to set off against the income determined in the search proceedings. Respectfully following the same, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT-A. Hence the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 98. With respect to the CO, raised by the assessee, we find that the assessee in the CO supported the order of the learned CIT-A and therefore no separate adjudication is required for the same. As such the issue raised by the assessee in the CO becomes infructuous. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ack during the year itself along with interest as applicable after deducting the TDS. Therefore, the genuineness of the receipt of loan from these parties cannot be doubted. Further, the AO in assessment himself has prepared a chart showing PAN of loan creditors and income declared by them for AYs 2009-10 to 2015-16. On perusal of the same, it can be seen that these parties were regularly filing return of income and has shown substantial taxable income. Thus the identity and creditworthiness of the loan parties cannot be doubted. Similarly, the addition of Rs. 14,89,31,973/- made on account of loan from M/s Adi Corporation is not justified. As such, out of the loan amount of Rs. 14.8 crore received during the year and interest credited @ 14.5%, an amount of Rs. 13,43,59,024/- being principle amount and interest was repaid during the year leaving closing balance of Rs. 1,42,25,420/- only. Therefore, the amount of addition of Rs. 14,89,31,973/- includes interest of Rs. 9,31,973/- only. For which separate addition of interest expenses was made, thus the same lead to double addition. 103.1 Likewise loan of Rs. 2.50 crore received from Smt. Falguniben C Patel against which interest o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relevant objection raised by the assessee in its CO No. 67/Ahd/2019 is reproduced as under: 2. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts of the case, various details \ submitted by the Respondent to establish the identity of the various loan parties as well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent, has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 36,63,27,597/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission i made by the Respondent has rightly held that from verification of the ledger account of the eight parties namely (i) Neminath Traders Pvt. Ltd, (ii) Three C Surveys Pvt. Ltd (iii) Deesha Tie Up Pvt. Ltd, (iv) Ashishbhai Shah, (v) Laxmi Dyechem (vi) Samket Enterprise, (vii) Gokul Refoils and Solvents and (viii) Sarvashanti Properties Pvt. Ltd, it is noticed that the Respondent has not paid interest to aforesaid eight companies from whom unsecured loan received during the year under consideration and therefore, the disallowance of interest is not justified and the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly deleted the disallowance of interest made by the AO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nn.com 251, no addition can be made under section 68 of the Act. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) as far as deletion made by him with regard to loan from above mentioned parties i.e. Vaibhav Capital Management, Ashish bhai Shah, Laxmi Dyechem, Samket Enterprise, Gokul Refoils & Solvents Ltd and Adi Corporation. 110. Coming to the addition of Rs. 2 crores against the alleged unsecured loan from the party namely Sarvashanti Properties Pvt. Ltd., the appellant assessee during appellate proceeding claimed that no fresh loan from said party was credited during the year. The amount of Rs. 2 crore is carry forwarded from previous year. The claim of the assessee has been found true by the learned CIT(A). The learned DR before us not brought any contrary material to controvert the finding of the learned CIT(A). Hence we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the learned CIT(A) in connection alleged loan from Sarvashanti Properties Pvt. Ltd. 110.1 Moving forward to issue of deletion of addition by the learned CIT(A) on account of loan from the parties namely Neminath Traders Pvt Ltd., Three C Survey Pvt Ltd and Deesha Tie Up Pvt Ltd.,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 110.4 With respect to the CO, raised by the assessee, we find that the assessee in the CO supported the order of the learned CIT-A and therefore no separate adjudication is required for the same. As such the issue raised by the assessee in the CO becomes infructuous. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 110.5 In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed Now coming to the CO. filed by assessee bearing No. 67/AHD/2019 for the AY 2012-13 111. The following objection were raised by the assessee in CO. 1. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts of the case, submission of ' the Respondent as well as the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 1,87,72,1007-. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts of the case, various details \ submitted by the Respondent to establish the identity of the various loan parties as well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent, has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 36,63,27,597/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... grossly erred in law and on facts in partly allowing the appeal. He ought to have allowed the appeal fully in accordance with the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before him. 1(a). The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in estimating the net profit margin at 20% for an amount of Rs. 71,02,500/- out of the unaccounted receipt of Rs. 3,55,12,500/- of Abhishree Adroid project. (b) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to consider the fact that the Page No. 73 to 124 of Annexure A/16 has been found and seized from the office premises of Shri Anil Shah and Atul Shah at B-406, Wall Street-ll, Ahmedabad on the basis of which the unaccounted cash receipts of Abhishree Adroid project has been worked out by the AO, the provisions of section 132(4A) r.w.s. 292C is applicable in their cases and the same cannot be made applicable in the case of the appellant company. (c) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to consider the fact that in absence of the statement of Shri Atul Shah and Anil Shah in respect of seized Annexure A/16 Page No. 75 to 124 and in absence of any incriminating material being found from the offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 52 to 54 of this order partly in favor of the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed. 115.1 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Now coming to ITA No. 189/AHD/2018, an appeal by the Revenue for the AY 2013-14. 116. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,72,10,000/- being 80% of unaccounted cash receipts on projects without appreciating that these receipts had been deposited in bank accounts or given to directors/their family/HUFs for their own use and that assessee had not produced the names, other details and purpose for which 80% of unaccounted cash receipts were diverted. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,63,54,290/- being duplicate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsaction was unexplained both in hands of creditors as well as assessee, the addition in both cases is justified in view of case laws in Trinetra Commerce & Trade (P.) Ltd. [2016] 75 taxmann.com 70 (Calcutta) and Jagmohan Ram Ram Chandra [2004] 141 Taxman 574 (Allahabad) as sections 68 & 69 are deeming provisions and effect to both sections has to be given separately in hands of both creditor and assessee. 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 80,36,622/- being interest on unsecured loans from parties as in grounds above without appreciating that such interest was paid on unexplained credits. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 9. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent." 117. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground No. 1 is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,72,10,000/- in respect of unaccounted cash receipt from of Rs. 3,55,12,500 and Rs. 1,10,00,000/- from the Abhishree Avenue an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... floor of Androit project. On perusal of the sales trail balance filed by the assessee for the FY 2012-13 where it is shown that Shri Mihirbhai Pandya booked the unit No. 1008 (i.e 10th floor) in adroit project and paid the amount of Rs. 37,38,000/- during the FY 2012-13. 3) Similarly, a noting on these pages was found that the cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been withdrawn by cheque No. 053525 dated 04-01-2013 from corporation bank account (HO). On perusal of the Bank account and cash book produced by the assessee found that the cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been withdrawn from the corporation bank account(HO) bearing account No. 01000269 by the same cheque and date as discussed. 4) Further, these pages contain the details of cash receipt from Shri Satnam whose full name is Shri Satvindersing M Vasu with whom assessee had extensive land deal in Mulsana. His name is also reflecting in the balance sheet of the assessee for the AY 2011-12 as lender. 5) These pages also contain the detail of cash receipt in respect of Mulsana land account. It is found from that the assessee has invested the amount in Mulsana land by way of advance given to Sarthav investment who fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....material/or clinching evidence being in the form of statement of Shri Anil Hiralal Shah and Atul Hiralal Shah that such transactions pertain to the assessee. Accordingly, the CIT (A) deleted the addition made by AO. 125. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the Revenue is in appeal before us. The assessee has also preferred the CO. The revenue is in appeal against the deletion of the addition made by the learned CIT(A) of Rs. 10,63,54,290/- whereas the assessee in CO has supported the deletion of addition by CIT(A) of Rs. 15,27,66,790/-. 126. The relevant objection raised by the assessee in CO No. 68/Ahd/2019 reads as under: 2. The Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission made by the Respondent has correctly deleted the addition of Rs. 15,27,66,790/- the same being duplicate addition of unaccounted cash receipts. 127. Both the Ld. DR of the Revenue and the Ld. AR of assessee before us reiterated the contentions by making reference to the order of the authorities below as favorable to them. 128. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the precedin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wal belongs to the parties from whose possession the documents are found until and unless some nexus is established with the assessee. However, we find that no such nexus was established. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT-A, and thus hold that no addition is warranted in the given facts and circumstances. * Receipt from Satnam/ Cash receipt from the sale of wastage/ Sharfi Receipts and Misc. Receipts as detailed under Cash reeived from satnam 20000000 Waste sale 154540 Sarafi cash Receipt 45000000 Other Misc Receipts 22500 Total 152766790 128.1 The above receipts were recorded in the seized document but there was no nexus established by the AO that such cash receipt was connected to the assessee. Admittedly, the document relating to the cash receipt was recovered from the premises of Shri Anil Hiral shah/ Atul Hiralal shah, thus the provisions of section 132(4A) read with section 292C of the Act provides the presumption that transaction recorded on such pages belongs to the parties from whose possession the documents are found until and unless some nexus is established with the assessee. However we find that no su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leted the addition of Rs. 16,09,22,877/- on account of unsecured loan. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission of the Respondent has rightly held that in respect of unsecured loan received from three parties namely (i) Deesha Tie Up Pvt. Ltd and (ii) Jignesh Shah, the Respondent has not paid interest to aforesaid two parties from whom the unsecured ban has been received during the year under consideration and therefore, the disallowance of interest is not justified in respect of unsecured loan received from the aforesaid parties and has correctly deleted the disallowance of interest made by the Ld. AO on account of unsecured loan received from the aforesaid parties of Rs. 1,07,48,951/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission made by the Respondent has held that unsecured loan received from four parties namely (i) Adi Corporation, (ii) Amrapali Fincap Pvt.Ltd, (iii) Adi Enterprise and (iv) Falgun C. Patel are genuine and therefore, I have deleted the addition made in respect of unsecured loan of aforesaid four parties in Ground of Appeal No. II and on verification of the facts, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(A) on account of loan from the party Deesha Tie Up Pvt Ltd for Rs. 50 Lakh. The identity of the party got establish beyond doubt by the fact that this party was assessed under section 153A/153C of the Act by the same AO who has framed assessment in case of the appellant assessee. Further, the assessee furnished details such as ledger copy, confirmation of the party and bank statement showing amount transferred through banking channel along with audited financial statement showing substantial funds in their financial statements. The AO was also having access to all these documentary evidences being the AO of the loan party but no infirmity was pointed out by the AO in these preliminary evidences based on conclusive or corroborative material. Thus, in our considered view the assessee has duly discharged the onus cast under section 68 of the Act by placing the documentary evidences with respect to identity, credit worthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transactions. Further, under the provision of section 68 of the Act, the assessee is expected to prove the source of credit in its books of accounts and not the source of source. 139.1 Coming to addition of Rs. 2.5 cro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the assessee in the CO supported the order of the learned CIT-A and therefore no separate adjudication is required for the same. As such the issue raised by the assessee in the CO becomes infructuous. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 140.1 In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Now coming to CO filed by assessee bearing No. 68/AHD/2019 AY 201314 141 The assessee has raised the following objection: "1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition being 20% of Rs. 3,55,12,500/- being unaccounted cash receipts on projects of the Abhishree Adroid Project amounting to Rs. 71,02,500/- and 20% of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- being unaccounted cash receipts on project of Abhishree Ecostead amounting to Rs. 22,00,000/-. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have deleted the entire addition. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission made by the Respondent has correctly deleted the addition of Rs. 15,27,66,790/- the same being duplicate addition of unaccounted cash receipts. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect namely Abhisree Adroit and Abhishree Ecostead. 143. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its grounds of objection for the AY 2013-14 is identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. 147/Ahd/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 147/Ahd/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 52 to 54 of this order partly in favor of the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2013-14. Hence, the grounds raised in the CO by the assessee is hereby partly allowed. 144 The second objection raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 15,27,66,790/- made by the AO on account of other unaccounted receipts. 145. At the outset, we find that the assessee in the CO supported the order of the learned CIT-A and therefore no separate adjudication is required for the same. As such the issue raised by the assessee in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of Shri Sanket Vora (Shah) and not in the case of the appellant company and unless and until the presumption applicable against Shri Sanket Vora (Shah) has not been rebutted by Shri Sanket Vora (Shah) in his statement recorded during the course of search proceeding and/or in the post search enquiry as well as offering the explanation during the course of assessment proceedings in his case in respect of material found and seized from his possession, hence no adverse inference can be drawn in the case of the appellant company. 2.(a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the other unaccounted receipts of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- worked out by the AO on the basis of seized loose paper page No. 15 & 16 of Annexure A/1 found and seized from the residence of the directors of the appellant company. (b) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not considering the justifiable explanation of the appellant that the notings found to be noted on the seized loose paper page No. 15 & 16 of Annexure A/1 is in respect of expected fund flow for receipts and payments and from the seized loose paper, no noting of cash receipt and cash payment has been found. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as unaccounted cash receipt for the AY 2014-15. 152.1 Similarly, it was found based on page 16 of annexure A1 being a seized document containing the amount of cash receipt of Rs. 50 lakhs from Shri Nitesh in the month of May 2013 which was repaid along with the interest at the rate of 18% in the month of November 2013. The AO has not found any reference in respect of this receipt by reason of both the receipt and payments are in cash. However the name of the Nishitbhai Mahndera appears in the excel sheet "ccccc.xls" on 9-07-2010 when payment of Rs. 38,000/ has been made on account of Abhishree Avenue. Accordingly the AO treated the above amount of Rs. 50 lacs as unaccounted cash receipt for the AY 2014-15. 152.2 Both the aforesaid entries were pertaining to the financial year 2013-14 and therefore the AO treated the amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000/-( 75,00,000/- + 50,00,000/-) as unaccounted cash received by the assessee which was not recorded in the books of accounts and added to the total income. 153. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 153.1 The assessee in respect of the addition of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- on account of other unaccounted receipt submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellate order whereas, on the contrary, the learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order. 160. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. As regards the receipt of Rs.75 lakhs shown from the party namely Shri Shailish Bhai, we find that there was the sale of the showroom by the assessee as evident from the seized documents. Therefore it can be concluded that the impugned amount of receipt represents the unaccounted money of the assessee relating to its business. Therefore the same should be made subject to tax at the rate of 8% in parity of the different projects carried out by the assessee where the profit has been estimated at the rate of 8% of the unaccounted receipts. 160.1 With respect to the receipt of Rs.50 lakhs we note that the amount received by the assessee has been repaid which is evident from the seized documents discussed above. Thus there remains no ambiguity to the fact that there was no element of income in the receipt of Rs.50 lakhs and therefore no addition of whatsoever is required to be made in the given facts an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unexplained credits. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 6. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A O be restored to the above extent. 162. The first issue raised by the Revenue in ground No. 1 is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,65,30,000/- in respect of unaccounted cash receipt of Rs. 5,50,37,500/- from the Abhishree Adroit Project. 163. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2014-15 is identical to the issue raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 187/Ahd/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 187/Ahd/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. The appeal of the revenue for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 69 of this order against the Revenue. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2011-12 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2014-15. Hence, the ground of appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red loan received from the aforesaid two parties and the Ld. CIT (A) has correctly deleted the disallowance of interest made by the Ld. AO on account of unsecured loan received from the aforesaid parties of Rs. 29,41,305/-. 5. The Ld, CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission made by the Respondent has held that the unsecured loan received from Adi Corporation is genuine and deleted the addition made in respect of unsecured loan of Adi Corporation and on verification of the facts, the Respondent has paid interest to Adi Corporation after deducting the IDS and the AO in the assessment order has nowhere brought on record any fact that the unsecured loans received by the Respondent from the four parties were not used for the purpose of business of the Respondent and it has been used for any other purpose, the interest paid to Adi Corporation is required to be treated as for the business purpose and the same is allowable as per provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and the interest disallowed by the AO is not justified and the Ld. CIT (A) has correctly deleted the disallowance of interest mad the by the AO. 168. The learned DR before us v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent Services for Rs. 1 crore, the identity of the party got established beyond doubt by the fact that this party was being assessed under section 153A/153C of the Act by the same AO who has framed assessment in case of the appellant assessee. Further, the assessee furnished detail such as ledger copy, confirmation of the party and bank statement showing amount transferred through banking channel along with audited financial statement showing substantial funds in their respective financial statements. The AO was also having access to all these documentary evidences being the AO of the loan party but no infirmity was pointed out by the AO in these preliminary evidences based on conclusive or corroborative material. Thus, in our considered view, the assessee has duly discharged the onus cast under section 68 of the Act by placing the documentary evidence with respect to identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the parties. Further, under the provision of section 68 of the Act, the assessee is expected to prove the source of credit in its books of account and not the source of source. 173. Once, the loan amount credited in the books of the assessee found to be genuine and addi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Respondent has rightly held that in respect of unsecured loan received from two parties namely (i) Shree Ram Realties and (ii) Siddham Management Services Respondent has not paid interest to aforesaid two parties from whom the unsecured loan has been received during the year under consideration and therefore, the disallowance of interest is not justified in respect of unsecured loan received from the aforesaid two parties and the Ld. CIT (A) has correctly deleted the disallowance of interest made by the Ld. AO on account of unsecured loan received from the aforesaid parties of Rs. 29,41,305/-. 5. The Ld, CIT(A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission made by the Respondent has held that the unsecured loan received from Adi Corporation is genuine and deleted the addition made in respect of unsecured loan of Adi Corporation and on verification of the facts, the Respondent has paid interest to Adi Corporation after deducting the IDS and the AO in the assessment order has nowhere brought on record any fact that the unsecured loans received by the Respondent from the four parties were not used for the purpose of business of the Respondent and it has be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sue raised in the CO. by the assessee, we find that the assessee in the CO supported the order of the learned CIT-A and therefore no separate adjudication is required for the same. As such the issue raised by the assessee in the CO becomes infructuous. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 181.1 In the result, the CO raised by the assessee is partly allowed. Now coming to ITA No. 150/AHD/2018 an appeal by the Assessee for the AY 2015-16 182. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in partly allowing the appeal. He ought to have allowed the appeal fully in accordance with the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before him. 1(a) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the unaccounted cash receipts of the project Abhishree Adroit of the appellant company for an amount of Rs. 1,41,57,800/- on the basis of seized loose paper found and seized from the office premises of the appellant company for which though the appellant company has already placed the rebuttal submission to rebut the presumption u/s. 132(4A) r.w.s. 292C applicable in the case of the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he basis of seized material Page No. 14 to 16 of A-1 seized from the premises of Shri Atul Shah and seized Pages 42 to 44, 54 of A-2 from the premises of Shri Asit Vora pertaining to the appellant company. (b) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in estimating 20% of profit margin at Rs. 1,49,60,980/- for the hawala transactions of Rs. 7,48,04,900/-. (c) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts that provisions of section 132(4A) r.w.s. 292C of the Act in respect of the material found and seized from the premises of Shri Atul Shah and Asit Vora is applicable in their cases and not in the case of the appellant company. (d) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in failing to consider the fact that in absence of any statement of Shri Atul Shah and Asit Vora being brought on record by the AO against the appellant company in respect of the seized material found from their premises, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have treated the said seized material as dumb document in the case of the appellant company and no Hawala transaction pertaining to the appellant company can be worked out on the basis of the dumb document. (e) The Ld. CIT(A) has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he total income of the assessee. 187. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the addition of Rs. 1,95,00,000/- was made on the basis of documents seized from the residence of Shri Sanjay Sutaria and Dharmen Sutaria. As such, there was a proposal of booking of plot in Abhishrii Residency III scheme. It was only the detail of expected cheque receipt from Shri Ganpat bhai. However, the two family members of Shri Ganpat Bhai booked the unit No. 9 and 10 of Abhsiree corporate project and assessee received all the amount through banking channel. 188. The Ld. CIT(A) reject the contention of the assessee and followed his earlier order by estimating 20% of unaccounted receipt of Rs. 1,95,00,000/- only as income from the project. 189. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, both the assessee and the revenue are in appeal before us. The assessee has also preferred the CO. The assessee is in appeal against the confirmation of the addition made by the learned CIT-A in part for Rs. 39,00,000/- whereas the revenue is in appeal against the deletion of the addition made by the learned CIT-A for Rs. 8,67,70,160/- only. 189.1 The relevan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etail of Hawala and cash transaction were found from the premises of Shri Atul Hiralal Shah and Shri Ashit Vohra. The seized papers were marked as page Nos. 14 to 16 of Annexure A-1, pages 42 to 44 and 54 of annexure A-2. The pages 43-44 of annexure A-2 is an MOU dated 14-05-2014 in respect of plot of Abhishree Orchard having area 8132 sq yard. 195. As per this MOU, the Ethos Solution Pvt Ltd. was purchasing party and appellant assessee was confirming party whereas lender was Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd. at a total deal price/ consideration of Rs. 5,82,26,000/- only. However, the amount of Rs. 2,32,44,532/- shall be payable at the time of signing of MOU. The confirmation letter of receiving the sum of Rs. 2,32,44,532/- through RTGS is also a seized and marked as page No. 42 of annexure A-2 as discussed above. 196. The AO on verification of the sale trial balance filed by the assessee found that the Ethos Solution Pvt Ltd is a creditor to tune of Rs. 5,81,45,000/- under the plot Nos. 179, 180 and 247 related to the project of Abhishree Orchard. 196.1 However, the assessee in its explanation denied such transaction but failed to explain how the banking transaction matchin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee on account of unaccounted cash receipt under section 69A of the Act for the AY 2015-16. 196.6 Therefore in view of the above the AO added total unexplained credit of Rs. 7,48,04,900/- (5,82,26,000/ + 98,25,000/ + 23,70,500/- + 43,83,400/-) under section 68/ 69A of the Act for the AY 2015-16. However, the AO omitted to add this addition to the computation of assessed income. 197. The learned CIT(A) during the appellate proceeding noted that the AO has made discussion in his order vide para 8.3 on page 89-92 but the same was not added in the total income. Hence the learned CIT(A) taking suo-moto cognizance of the same made partial addition on above issue by observing as under: 4.2.6 The AO in Para 10 under the head "Basis of taxation" on page 110 of the assessment order in the table under the issue "" Hawala transaction" for A.Y. 2015-16 has stated an amount of Rs. 7,48,04.900/- for which the AO has made discussion in Para 8.3 on page 89 to 92 of the assessment order. The AO has not considered the said amount of Rs. 7,48,04,900/- for making the addition on account of difference of GP as the AO on Page 114 of the assessment order in the table 'Under the headi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reads as under: 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in estimating the 20% of profit margin at Rs. 1,49,60,980/- for the hawala transactions of Rs. 7,48,04,900/-. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have deleted the entire addition. 201. The learned AR before us vehemently supported the view of the ld. CIT-A by reiterating the findings contained in the appellate order whereas, on the contrary, the learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order. 202. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2015-16 is identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. 147/Ahd/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 147/Ahd/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment 2011-12 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 52 to 54 of this order partly in favor of the assessee. The learned AR and the DR ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 29,41,305/- being interest on unsecured loans from Sidhham Management Services as in grounds above without appreciating that such interest was paid on unexplained credits and also on unsecured loans from Shree Ram Realties loan from which had been held as unexplained credit in earlier assessment years. 5 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 6. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A O. be restored to the above extent. 204. The First issue raised by the revenue in ground No. 1 is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,67,70,160/- in respect of unaccounted cash receipt determined based on seized materials. 205. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2015-16 is identical to the issue raised by the revenue in ITA No. 187/Ahd/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 187/Ahd/2018 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red loan from two parties namely (i) Siddham Management Services and (ii) Shree Ram Realties. Respondent has paid interest to two parties and TDS has also been deducted and deposited to the Government Account and the unsecured loan received from Siddham Management Service and Shree Ram Realties, the loan has been used by the Respondent for the business purpose and thus, interest of Rs, 67,38,0517- paid to the aforesaid three parties is also required to be allowed u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. In respect of M/s. Adi Corporation and Neminath Traders Pvt. Ltd., the Ld. CIT(A) has already deleted the addition made in respect unsecured loan of the two entities in Ground No. II, the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained expenditure (interest on unsecured loans) has been correctly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). 211. The learned DR before us vehemently supported the stand of the AO by reiterating the findings contained in the assessment order whereas, on the contrary, the learned AR before us vehemently supported the view of the ld. CIT-A by reiterating the findings contained in the appellate order. 212. We have heard the rival contention of both parties and perused the materia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n account of other unaccounted cash receipts of Abhishree Adroit Project. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have deleted the entire addition. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts, submission made by the appellant to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of lender parties as well as various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Respondent has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 2,56,71,005/- on account of unsecured loan. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) after carefully considering the facts of the case and submission of the Respondent has rightly held that in respect of unsecured loan received from two parties namely (i) Shree Ram Realties and (ii) Siddham Management Services, Respondent has not paid interest to aforesaid two parties from whom the unsecured loan has been received during the year under consideration and therefore, the disallowance of interest is not justified in respect of unsecured loan received from the aforesaid two parties and the Ld. CIT (A) has correctly deleted the disallowance of interest made by the Ld. AO on account of unsecured loan received from the aforesaid parties of ....