2026 (5) TMI 1473

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....A/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1076596803(1) Dated 31.05.2025 ACIT, CC-1, Delhi Dated 31.03.2023 5367/Del/ 25 2021-22 CIT(A)-23, Delhi DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1076596803(1) Dated 31.05.2025 ACIT, CC-1, Delhi Dated 31.03.2023 2. A search and seizure action was carried out on Dalmia Landmark Group on 17.03.2021 and the residential premises of the appellant was also covered u/s. 132 of the Act. The return of the assessee was filed on 30.03.2022 on income of Rs. 1,37,84,080/- and subsequently assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act has been passed on 31.03.2023 assessing total income of the assessee at Rs. 6,34,84,080/- wherein addition of Rs. 3,17,00,000/- has been made on account of alleged bonus and interest income u/s. 69A of the Act and an addition of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- u/s. 69A on account of unexplained money. 3. The allegation with regard to addition of Rs. 3,17,00,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act is that during the search sheet named "Aexited" was seized as page 14 of Annexure A-1 from the residence of assessee and this sheet allegedly had noting of a working of interest received from different entities of Dalmia Group. Another sheet named "B. Exited & Remitt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....becomes taxable in the hands of the appellant on due basis for the year under consideration. Undoubtedly the appellant was an employee of Dalmia Family Office Trust, from where he resigned in the month of December 2020 which happened prior to search & seizure action carried out u/s. 132. Moreover, the AO did not record a finding that the employer Dalmia Family Office Trust claimed to have paid the amount of Rs. 3,17,00,000/- to the appellant or made a provision for such expense of Rs. 3,17,00,000/- in its books of account. 6.2 l am of the considered view that in the given circumstances when the amount of Rs. 3,17,00,000/- was neither received by the appellant nor accrued to the appellant, the addition in the hands of the appellant is not justified at all. Therefore, I delete the addition of Rs. 3,17,00,000/-. 4. As with regard to addition of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act it was found that cash amounting to Rs. 1,82,01,300/- was found at the residence of assessee out of which Rs. 1,80,00,000/- was found unexplained in his statement. 4.1 However, later on assessee submitted that by virtue of his knowledge of real estate sector certain persons approach him to he....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....med, Saghir Ahmed towards purchasing of agricultural land Rs. 42,50,000/- represented the cash sale proceeds of agricultural produce belonging to farmers Rs. 15,00,000/-represented the cash savings of his daughter/Vrinda (married), and Rs. 39,51,300/- represented the cash savings of his family. 7.1 During assessment proceedings, confirmations with supporting papers like revenue records from three brothers regarding cash of Rs. 85,00,000/- were filed. During appeal proceedings, the appellant filed the confirmations with supporting papers like revenue records from three brothers regarding cash of Rs. 85,00,000/-. 7.2 The appellant also stated that during assessment proceedings the AO made direct inquiries from Tansir Ahmed, Mushir Ahmed, Saghir Ahmed by issuing notices and calling for documents. To support his contention, copies of notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act and the replies filed by Tansir Ahmed, Mushir Ahmed, Saghir Ahmed (with their portal generated acknowledgements) were filed before me. I am not inclined to give relief of such amount of Rs. 85,00,000/- as the availability of such cash in the hands of three brothers remained unproved. Moreover, during the cou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in law, the learned CIT(A) ought to have accepted the claim of assessee that cash of Rs. 4750000/-represented the accumulated cash savings of the family including the cash belonging to the assessee's married daughter, lying at home of the assessee. 7. On the peculiar facts of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the provisions of section 69A has no applicability in respect of addition of Rs. 4750000/-. 8. On the peculiar facts of the case and in law, charging of interest u/s. 234B is arbitrary, unjust & illegal, as the seized cash of Rs. 18000000/-was lying with the IT Department since 17.03.2021." ITA No.5367/Del/2025 (Department's Grounds) "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,17,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bonus/commission receivable, ignoring the incriminating documents seized during the search and the assessee's own sworn statement u/s. 132(4) confirming the commission rates and transactions. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that there was no accrual of income merely because no ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0/- while either making such payment to the assessee or making provision in their books of account. It is an undisputed fact that neither any document showing payment of Rs. 3.17 Crores by to the assessee nor any document showing receipt of Rs. 3.17 Crores by the assessee from 'Dalmia Family Office Trust' was seized. It is also an undisputed fact that even during the course of assessment proceedings, no such document had been brought on record by learned AO. We find substance in the contention of ld. AR that since there is no evidence or assertion that assessee had acquired any legal right to receive the said amount of Rs. 3.17 Crores and the assessee could have claimed the said amount of Rs. 3.17 Crores, at any time thereafter, the addition is not of any real income. Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the same and the reasoned findings, need no interference. The corresponding grounds raised by department stand rejected. 8. Now coming to the appeal of assessee and the corresponding ground Nos. 3 & 4 of the appeal of the department, we find that assessee on his part has placed some vital evidences from page No. 49 to 82 of the paper book with regard to 3 persons namely Mushir Ahm....