TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1879
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Income Tax [herein after "CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center [NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2016-17 & 2017-18. Through the aforesaid appeal the Revenue has challenged order u/s 250 dated 09.08.2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi. Both the appeals having identical grounds are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 24 days each in filing of these appeals by the Revenue. It has been pleaded that the concerned officer was overwhelmingly preoccupied with time barring assignments leading to delay in timely filing of these appeals. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee did not oppose the Revenue's petition for condonation of delay. Upon considering the facts we are satisfied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was argued that no independent enquiries were done by the Ld.AO to support his arguments. Thus it was argued that the Ld.CIT(A) had rightly concluded that the case of borrowed satisfaction was made out in the case and accordingly had concluded so. 5.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. The issue of borrowed satisfaction has been a subject matter of exhaustive examination by the Hon'ble Courts on several occasions. It has been held therein that wherever, pursuant to receipt of information from a third party, the reopening has been done by the Ld.AO after applying his own mind, supplemented by his / her own independent enquiries and investigations, a presumption of borrowed satisfaction would n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Ld.AO, argued that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly held that the Ld.AO's order is based upon conjectures and surmises since the assessment was made on the basis of material collected by the department. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the argument of the Ld. DR cannot be accepted, for when there was, admittedly, no impounded material available with the Ld.AO and no independent enquiries done, there can only be the case a guess work. 7.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted that the conclusion drawn by the Ld. CIT(A) qua guess work by the Ld. AO are emanating from the principle fact of non-availability of impounded documents with the Ld. AO as well as total lack of any in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as dealt the issue comprehensively in his order for AY-2016-17 (from page 42 to 46 ) and for AY-2017-18 (from page 56 to 59). Similarly as regards the issue of addition of Rs. 20,66,59,763/- the same has also been dealt by the Ld.CIT(A) extensively in his orders for AY-2017-18 (from page 56 to 59). 9.1 The Ld. DR made vehement request to restore the matter back to the Ld.AO for readjudication on the premise of adequate opportunities not being available with him. Upon consideration of the same we have noted that no merit lies in Revenue's request. Firstly the Ld. AO had ample time and opportunity with him to conduct his enquiries into the affairs of the assessee, as emanating from the survey action, by holding enquiries with the banks as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s hand, are not in assessee's name no case of addition can be made out. The Ld.CIT(A) has rightly concluded that without holding any enquiry and proving a direct connection between assessee and the cash deposits in M/s. S.R.Ravi Group concern, no legally permissible additions would lie in assessee's hands. We also do not find any defect in the conclusion drawn by the Ld.CIT(A) that the Ld.AO ought to have examined on oath persons whose names qua assessee were appearing in the impounded documents. We have also noted that the Ld.AO has made the entire addition without taking into possession the crucial incriminating documents impounded during the survey. When the entire hypothesis was built upon the incriminating documents, their availability....