TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 1325
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are identical these are heard analogously and are being disposed by a common order. ITA No. 2406/Ahd/2008 (A.Y. 2001-02)(Revenue's Appeal):- 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under: "1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in admitting the fresh evidence u/s. 46A without considering the A.O.'s objection that none of the conditions mentioned under that Rule was satisfied. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the additions of Rs. 44,22,190/- and Rs. 20,29,148/- made on account of unexplained capital and unexplained cash credits, respectively without considering the factual position that the assessee failed to prove identity and capacity of the depositors and genuineness of the transactions. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,23,634/- made on account of unverifiable repair expense without considering the findings of the A.O. that the assessee failed to prove these expenses by supporting evidence. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.4,25,771/- made on account of disallowance of interest for non-business use of the borrow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eceipts from M/s. Ghanshyam Builders being the proprietary concern of the assessee based on the seized material inventorized as Annexure A-18 has been ultimately decided in favour of the Revenue. Subsequently, the same was deleted by the Coordinate Bench in appeal being ITA No. 1963/Ahd/2006 for A.Y. 1998-99 preferred by the assessee which has further been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in Tax Appeal No. 1971 of 2009 as the argued advanced by the Ld. A.R. copy of each of the said order have duly been submitted before us. 5. The Ld. D.R. has not been able to controvert such submission made by the Ld. A.R. 6. Upon perusal of the above orders it appears that this ground has been allowed by the Coordinate Bench and subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. In the absence of any changed circumstances we do not find any reason to deviate from such stand taken by the Hon'ble Court. This ground of appeal preferred by the Revenue is found to be devoid of any merit and thus, dismissed. 7. Ground No.8:- Deleting the addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- made on account of undisclosed receipt relating to M/s. Ghanshyam Builders is under challenged before us. 8. We ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it with Mr. Dodia, issue summons, etc. As such, the addition was unjustified. 15.2 The contentions were carefully considered and copies of the stated receipts(filed with paper book) perused carefully. It is seen that the explanation furnished was plausible. The receipts were unsigned. The A.O. has not established that the consideration was understand. It also stands to reason that the receipts would have changed hands in case the transactions mentioned were enacted. In such a case, the receipts would have been given to Mr. Dodia. Also these are unsigned and in their present form, lack evidentiary value. In the circumstances, the addition made by the A.O. was hasty in nature and therefore not sustainable. It is deleted and the related ground of appeal is allowed." 11. It was argued by the Ld. A.R. that the identical ground of appeal on the identical facts and circumstances of the matter have been ultimately decided in favour of the assessee in the appeal preferred by Revenue by the Hon'ble High Court by its order dated 18.10.2011 copy whereof has also been submitted before us. 12. The Ld. DR has not been able to controvert such submission made by the Ld. A.R. 13. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-03)(Revenue's Appeal):- 21. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under: "1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in admitting fresh evidences under Rule 46A without considering the objection of the Assessing Officer that none of the conditions mentioned under that rule were satisfied. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.32,77,596/- and Rs.31,90,840/-made under Section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained capital and unexplained cash creditors respectively, without considering the factual position that the assessee failed to prove the identity and capacity of the depositors and the genuineness of the transaction with conclusive evidences. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.3,63,284/- made on account of disallowance of interest for non business use of borrowed funds without considering the fact that borrowed funds were used for non business purposes. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 16,51,490/- made on account of undisclosed income from Swaminarayan Avenue Project constructed by M/S. Ghanshyam Builders being....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ur of the assessee deleted by the Coordinate Bench in appeal being ITA No. 1963/Ahd/2006 for A.Y. 1998-99 preferred by the Revenue which has further been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in Tax Appeal No. 1971 of 2009 as the argued advanced by the Ld. A.R. copy of each of the said order have duly been submitted before us. 25. The Ld. D.R. has not been able to controvert such submission made by the Ld. A.R. 26. Upon perusal of the above orders it appears that this ground has been allowed by the Coordinate Bench and subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. In the absence of changed circumstances we do not find any reason to deviate from such stand taken by the Hon'ble Court. This ground of appeal preferred by the Revenue is found to be devoid of any merit and thus, dismissed. 27. Ground No.5:- This ground has already dealt with by us in the Ground No. 8 of the ITA No. 2406/Ahd/2008 for A.Y. 2001-02 and in the absence of any changed circumstances, the same shall apply mutatis mutandis. 28. Ground Nos. 7&8 are general in nature and no need to pass any separate order. 29. Therefore, ITA No. 2598/Ahd/2008 for A.Y. 2002-03 preferred by the Revenue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e given certain advances on 12.03.2004 to the amount of Rs. 28,500/-. Thereafter, the recoveries of Rs. 1,000/- was made on 12.03.2004 and further recoveries were made on different dates upto 01.12.2004. The outstanding balance of Rs. 20,000/- were given to the servants. On the basis of the noting it is clear that the amount of Rs. 28,500/- was paid on 12.03.2004 i.e. the relevant assessment year. Vide the office notice under Section 142(1) dated 20.11.2006 the assessee was specifically asked to explain the source of these advances with documentary evidence. In reply the assessee vide his written submission dated 15.12.2006 has submitted that the notings on these paper does not relate to any advance given by him. The notings on this page clearly mentioned the name, amount and date of advances and the name of the servants as of the finding of the Ld. A.O. Since the assessee failed to explain the source of this advance with documentary evidence, the same has been treated as unexplained expenditure as per the provision of Section 69 C of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Such addition was also confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the instant appeal b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are as under: "1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in admitting the fresh evidence u/s. 46A without considering the A.O's objection that none of the conditions mentioned under that Rule was satisfied. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,89,19,363/- and Rs. 69,88,121/- made on account of unexplained capital and unexplained cash credits, respectively without considering the factual position that the assessee failed to prove identity and capacity of the depositors and genuineness of the transactions. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.68,238/- made on account of disallowance of interest for non-business use of the borrowed funds, without considering the fact that borrowed funds were used for non-business purpose. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in restricting the addition of Rs. 82,75,619/- to Rs. 69,00,107/- made on account of unexplained investment in residential house and hotel building without considering and appreciating the valuation report of District Valuation Officer. 5. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not allowing oppo....