TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 316
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arious other reasons or bared by limitation and further contrary to the real facts of the case, hence the same may kindly be quashed. 1.2 The search action taken u/s 132and consequent proceedings are illegal, bad in law and on the facts of the case for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons, against the provisions and procedures as per law and further contrary to the real facts of the case hence all the consequent notices as well as the subsequent proceedings invalid, illegal, and bad in law hence liable to be quashed. * Rs. 6,81,034/-: The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in sustaining/confirming the addition of Rs. 6,81,0840/- made by the Id. AO u/s 40(A)(3) on account of cash payment for purchase of land, ignoring the other 2 material evidence and facts available on record. Hence the addition so made by the Id. AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is also contrary to the real facts of the case and not according to the provision of law hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. * Rs. 11,42,000/-: The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in sustaining/confirming the addition of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the other material, evidence and facts available on record. Hence the addition so made by the ld. AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is also contrary to the real facts of the case and not according to the provision of law, hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. * Rs. 5,00,000/-: The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in sustaining/confirming the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- made by the Id. AO u/s 68 on account of alleged cash credit as received from Sh. Sitaram Choudhary for repayment of advance given in earlier years as unexplained cash credit u/s 68., ignoring the other material, evidence and facts available on record. Hence the addition so made by the Id. AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is also contrary to the real facts of the case and not according to the provision of law, hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. * The Id. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging the interest u/s 234A, B,C. The interest so charged is being totally contrary to the provision of and on facts of the case and hence same may kindly be deleted in full. * That the appellant prays your honour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before the date of hearing." ITA No. 04/Jodh/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 * "The impugned order u/s 153A rws 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 14.06.2021 as well as the action taken u/s 153A and notices u/s 143(2) or other notices are illegal, bad in law and on the facts of the case for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons or bared by limitation and further contrary to the real facts of the case, hence the same may kindly be quashed. 1.2 The I search action taken u/s 132 and consequent proceedings are illegal, bad in law and on the facts of the case for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons, against the provisions and procedures as per law and further contrary to the real facts of the case hence all the consequent notices as well as the subsequent proceedings invalid, illegal, and bad in law hence liable to be quashed. * Rs. 1,53,000/-: The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in sustaining/confirming the addition of Rs. 1,53,000/- made by the Id. AO u/s 40(A)(3) on account of cash payment for purchase of land, ignoring the other material and facts available on record. Hence the addition so made by the Id. AO and con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore the date of hearing." ITA No. 06/Jodh/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 * "The impugned order u/s 153A rws 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 14.06.2021 as well as the action taken u/s 153A and notices u/s 143(2) or other notices are illegal, bad in law and on the facts of the case for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons or bared by limitation and further contrary to the real facts of the case, hence the same may kindly be quashed. * The search action taken u/s 132and consequent proceedings are illegal, bad in law and on the facts of the case for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons, against the provisions and procedures as per law and further contrary to the real facts of the case hence all the consequent notices as well as the subsequent proceedings invalid, illegal, and bad in law hence liable to be quashed. * Rs. 1,56,300/-: The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in sustaining/confirming the addition of Rs. 1,56,300/- made by the Id. AO u/s 40(A) (3) on account of cash payment for purchase of land, ignoring the other material and facts available on record. Hence the addition so made by the Id. AO and c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant has raised inter-related issues, on similar facts in these appeals and therefore, these appeals were heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order for brevity. The appeal in ITA No.01/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year 2013-14) is taken as lead case for discussion of the facts. 4. In ground no. 2 the appellant has challenged that the Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in sustaining/confirming the addition of Rs. 6,81,0840/- made by the Id. AO u/s 40(A)(3) on account of cash payment for purchase of land, ignoring the other 2 material evidence and facts available on record. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in real estate business. And it has e-filed its original Return on 13.03.2015 declaring total loss of Rs. (-) 3,43,279/-). A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out by the department at the business & residential premises of Adarsh Group of Sirohi on 14.06.2018/30.07.2018. Consequent to the search, a notice u/s. 153A dated 15.01.2019 was also issued to the assessee company, pursuant to which the assessee company filed its return of Income on 13.02.2019 declaring t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see, engaged in the business of buying and selling of lands, had made cash payments as part of the sale consideration to sellers who didn't have bank accounts at the time. It can be considered that due to business exigency and specific demands of the sellers, it was not practical to make the payment via cheque or draft. Further, it is very clear that the provisions u/s. 40A(3) of the Act are not intended to restrict the business activities and no disallowance should be made under section 40A(3) of the Act when the transaction is genuine. It is insisted only to enable the AO to ascertain whether the cash payments made are out of the income from disclosed sources. In the instant case, the appellant has failed to substantiate the source of cash payment with documentary evidences. 6.1.2 On the basis of above discussion, it is clear that the appellant had paid the cash payment for purchase of land and the cash payments made were out of the income from undisclosed sources. The appellant had argued that disallowance u/s 40A(3) is not applicable for capital expenditure. The argument of the appellant is not acceptable. The appellant had shown such land as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t proceedings and amount in question cannot be treated as loan given by Company to Assessee being deemed income as per provisions of S. 2(22)(e), no addition can be made on account of deemed dividend. 6.5.2 In another case of 'ITO v/s Chitalia Builders', 90 CCH 405(Guj) it was held that insofar as the deletion of addition is concerned, we find that the A.O has not confronted with any defects in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. The A.O has not given any valid reasons for not accepting the cost shown by the assessee though he accepts that the method of accounting was mercantile. Hence, in our opinion, the deletion was justified. 6.5.3 In 'CIT v/s Oasis Hospitalities', 333 ITR 119(Del) held similar finding in IT Appeal No. 2093 of 2010 and IT Appeal No. 2095 of 2010, by observing as under: The AO was influenced by the information received by the Investigation Wing and on that basis generally modus operandi by such entry operators is discussed in detail. However, whether such modus operandi existed in the present case or not was not investigated by the AO. The assessee was not confronted with the investigation carried out by the Investigation Wing or was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....payments are duly reflected in the Cash Book which can be verified from the relevant extract of the Cash Book is enclosed as Annexure 'B'. 3) The assessee produced regular books of accounts before the learned assessing officer as and when called by him during the assessment proceeding. 4) As stated and admitted by the learned assessing officer that the copies of registered sale deeds too mentioned the payments made by the assessee to the sellers in parts (fardan-fardan). The Sale Deed is signed by the Sellers as well as Buyers acknowledging the payments made by buyers and received by the sellers. 5) The Sale Deed too states that the full payment has been received by the buyers and same is acknowledged by them. Thus, the appellant has explained and substantiated the source of cash payment with documentary evidence before the department which has been not disputed. 6.5.5 In the present case, the assessee's not given opportunity to confront with material relied upon by AO during assessment proceedings and that how the amount in question was disallowable under the provisions u/s. 40A(3) of the Act as the section 40A(3) is not intended to restrict the bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accommodation entries. Accordingly, he upholds the addition made by the AO of making addition of Rs. 11,42,000/- on account of cash deposited by the assessee company in its bank account as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of Income tax Act, 1961. 8.2 The Ld. AR submitted that assessee filed the detailed reply (WS, APB 29- 37) and material evidence where assessee has explained that amount was deposited in bank was duly reflected in its Cash Book submitted before the ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) has admitted that on perusal of the cash book of the appellant, it is noticed that the appellant has shown the source of cash receipts from Opening Balance, cash received from Chandra Pal Singh, and Raghunath Singh Jhala and cash withdrawals from Bank (page 18 of the CIT(A) order). The ld. CIT(A) has also reproduced the Bank Statement at page 19-20 of its order. 8.3 The Ld. AR submitted that on the perusal of the assessment order, SCN dt.27.05.2021 (PB10-11) issued by the ld. AO and record it is very clear that the ld. AO has never confronted the issue of Section 68 to the assessee. The AO has only stated that as to why the relevant cash sum deposit....