TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1886
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ains caused by Cyclone Fengal at Puducherry during the relevant period and hence, there was delay of 11 days. 3. On perusal of the aforesaid reasons in the condonation application, we are of the view that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of these appeals and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing these appeals and proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits. 4. Common issues are raised in these appeals, hence, they were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. The solitary issue raised on merits is regarding addition on account of purported unaccounted cash collection. 5. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The assessee is a company engaged in the business of real estate and property development. There was a survey u/s.133A of the Act conducted in the premises of the assessee company on 23.03.2017. During the course of survey, project-wise details undertaken by the assessee company in excel sheets were found in office desktop computer of Shri V.Angamuthu, Assistant General Manager (Admin). The survey team took a printout and impounded the same vide annexure ANN/SM/FO/IMP totaling....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... etc. The grounds raised for assessment years are identical except for variance in figures. For AY's 2015-16 & 2017-18 there are additional grounds with regard to duplication of additions made by AO. The grounds raised in memorandum of appeal for AY 2015-16 read as follows:- "1. For that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and at any rate is opposed to the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play. 2. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction. Addition on account of purported unaccounted cash collection 3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- on account of purported unaccounted cash collected from customers towards sale of flats. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- was made merely based on sworn statements which were recorded under tremendous stress and duress without any corroborative evidence. 5. For that the Commissioner of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an impact on the sale price of the flats. Levy of interest u/s.234 13. The appellant objects to the levy of interest u/s.234 of the Income Tax Act. PRAYER For these grounds raised and such other grounds that may be raised, may be altered, amended or modified, with the leave of the Hon'ble Tribunal before or during the hearing of the appeal, it is most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to: a) Quash the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and / or b) Delete the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and /or c) Pass such other orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit. For Foundation One Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd." 8. The assessee has also filed an application vide its letter dated 18.02.2025 for admission of additional ground, wherein it is stated that "the sworn statements recorded u/s.131(1A) of the Act are impermissible and not valid in the eyes of law". The assessee has also filed a petition seeking permission of the Tribunal to consider grounds not raised before the lower authorities, but raised for the first time before ITAT. The said ground state....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to have paid on-money, whereas, assessee has obtained confirmation from buyers stating that they have only paid amounts disclosed in the sale deed. On merits, the learned AR submitted that additions made for AY 2015- 16 is bad in law, because same amount has been added also in AY 2014-15. Similarly for AY 2017-18 a sum of Rs. 2 crores has been added twice i.e., for AY 2016-17 as well as for 2017-18. Lastly, it was contended by the learned AR that CIT(A) has erred in not considering confirmation letters given by purchasers stating that only disclosed consideration was paid. 12. The learned DR submitted that even assuming sworn statement cannot be taken as a piece of evidence, the assessee voluntarily had furnished two letters disclosing receipt of on-money for various years and how the same should be brought to tax in respect of various AY's. Further, the learned DR strongly relied on findings of AO and CIT(A) and submitted that order of CIT(A) is correct and no interference is called for. 13. We have heard rival submissions and perused materials on record. In the instant case, the grounds raised by the assessee company are against the addition made by the assessing off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot have any evidentiary value as held by the jurisdictional high court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan son reported in 300 ITR 157. The Hon. Apex Court dismissed the SLP filed by the revenue and the issue has reached finality. We find that recording of statement under section 131[1A) of the Act in the case under consideration is incorrect and invalid as per law. Since the subject statements are invalid in law therefore the same could not have been used to make any addition in the case under consideration. Even considering the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pooran Mal v Director of Inspection [1974] 93 ITR 505 (SC) where it was observed that material obtained from an illegal search can still be used against the person in whose custody it was found, it is to be noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision concerned itself with material obtained from an illegal search and not a mere illegal statement recorded under the wrong provisions of the Income Tax Act as stated in the aforesaid paragraphs. 15. We also find that the assessing officer relied upon the impounded material in the form of excel sheets that were taken from the computer of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erial or corroborative evidence to prove the receipt of on-money by the assessee company, which only goes to show that the impounded material contained a lot of inaccurate data which are not capable of being reconciled, making the same unreliable and thus could not have been relied upon for making the additions. 17. We also note that the entries in the excel sheets do not indicate when the alleged on-monies in respect of sale of flats was received by the assessee company. In fact, the assessing officer merely relies on the project-wise and year-wise details of on-money receipts that were provided by the assessee company to make additions across various assessment years. The said details were provided through two letters, one on 12.06.2017 and the other on 26.07.2017, contents of which have been reproduced in the assessment order. On a glimpse of the contents of the first letter, it can be seen that the year of receipt is mentioned as relating to AYs 2014-15 to 2018-19 since the year of receipt is stated as the years 2013-14 to 2017-18. Coming to the second letter, it can be seen that the assessee company had agreed to offer income in AYs 2013- 14 to 2017-18. This clearly shows t....