TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2308
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Although, these appeals filed by the Revenue and assessee, contain multiple ground of appeals. However, at the time of hearing, we have carefully perused all the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as Assessee. Most of the grounds raised by the Revenue, as well as Assessee, are either academic in nature or contentious in nature. However, to meet the end of justice, we confine ourselves to the core of the controversy and main grievances of Revenue and the Assessee, as well. With this background, we summarize and concise the grounds raised by the Revenue as well as Assessee, as follows: (1) Ground No.1 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in restricting the addition of Rs. 48,58,27,657/- made on account of income earned out of credit entries in undisclosed foreign Bank account to Rs. 1,80, 12,961/- [Revenue has raised this ground No. 1 in ITA No. 46/RJT/2019 for AY 2010-11, ground No. 1 in ITA No. 47/RJT/2019 for AY 2011-12, ground No. 1 in ITA No. 48/RJT/2019 for AY 2012-13, ground No. 1 in ITA No. 49/RJT/2019 for AY 2013-14; and ground no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [This is common ground no.5 in ITA No. 46/RJT/2019 for AY 2010-11, ground no. 6 in ITA No. 47/RJT/2019 for AY 2011-12, ground no. 7 in ITA No. 48/RJT/2019 for AY 2012-13, ground no. 7 ITA No. 49/RJT/2019 for AY 2013-14 and ground no. 7 in ITA No. 102/RJT/2019 for AY 2014-15] Ground No.6 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 17,79,400/- on account of undisclosed income which used for purchase of cheques/DDs from M/s. Siddhanath Enterprise. [This is common ground no.6 in ITA No. 46/RJT/2019 for AY 2010-11, ground no. 7 in ITA No. 47/RJT/2019 for AY 2011-12, ground no. 8 in ITA No. 48/RJT/2019 for AY 2012-13] Ground No.7- On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the provisions of section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which requires the total income to be brought under tax without any restrictions and On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law in and on facts in holding that such assessment or re-assessment u/s.153A of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nue's ground no.2 and 3 in ITA No. 47/RJT/2019 for AY 2011-12, ground no.3 in ITA No. 48/RJT/2019 for AY 2012-13 and ground No. 3 and 4 in ITA No. 49/RJT/2019 for AY 2013-14] (10).The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in confirming addition of Rs. 2,48,000/- made on account of alleged premature surrender of Unit Linked Insurance Policy. [This ground is raised by the assessee vide ground no. 5 in ITSS No. 7/RJT/2019 for AY 2011-12] (11) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,27,20,642/- made on account of income earned out of credit entries in undisclosed foreign Bank Account (RAK Bank, Dubai). [This is Revenue's ground vide ground No. 2 in ITA No. 48/RJT/2019 for AY 2012-13 and ITA No. 49/RJT/2019 for AY 2013-14 and ground no. 5 in ITA No. 102/RJT/2019 for AY 2014-15] (12) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/-, made on account unexplained cash credit (Jay Khodiyar Dairy Farm) [Thes is Revenue's ground No. 9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... summarized and concise ground again, for the sake of brevity. However, the relevant material facts are narrated in detail in case of those grounds of appeal where the relevant issue of the assessee is not covered in assessee`s own case(supra). 5. Now, we shall take above summarized and concise grounds of revenue and assessee, one by one, as follows: 6. The summarized and concise ground no.1 ( revenue and assessee) is reproduced below for ready reference; "(1) Ground No.1 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in restricting the addition of Rs. 48,58,27,657/- made on account of income earned out of credit entries in undisclosed foreign Bank account to Rs. 1,80, 12,961/- [Revenue has raised this ground No. 1 in ITA No. 46/RJT/2019 for AY 2010-11, ground No. 1 in ITA No. 47/RJT/2019 for AY 2011-12, ground No. 1, in ITA No. 48/RJT/2019 for AY 2012-13, ground No. 1in ITA No. 49/RJT/2019 for AY 2013-14; and ground no. 3 in ITA No. 102/RJT/2019 for AY 2014-15, These grounds of Revenue are identical and arising out of same issue for addition deleted by Ld. CIT(A).] [Similarly, assessee h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rthiness of the investor. In the above case, this amount is USD 221,885.24 which means this amount is payable by Shri Pankaj Lodhiya. 2. VARIATION MARGIN: Variation margin is the additional funds that a broker may request from a client so that the initial margin requirements of his position keep up with any losses. If the client's equity falls below the initial margin requirement when marked to the closing price at the end of each day a margin call will be made. Sometimes referred to as maintenance margin. As per the above document, there is clear-cut involvement of amount as asked by the broker in the Variation Margin of USD 2,800,589.57, as without it no further trading would be done." 9.10 We also note that the assessing officer himself in his order at various placed recorded that the assessee was engaged in the trading Metals Web platform as evident from his observation as detailed under: "Three HTML documents about the trading on the Metals web Platform of Bank were found from the digital forensic analysis of seized hard ves. It was found that Shri Pankaj Lodhiya's name appeared as the user for trading on Metals Web platform. Metals Web platf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is clarification was required due to the fact that the PCIT (Central) has written to the ITSC that these statements are showing trading in derivatives. But the assessing officer in his remand report remained silent and just submitted that these statements are received under DTAA agreements which are confidential. From the remand report, we note that there was no defect pointed out in the observation of the ld. CIT-A by the assessing officer. 9.16 In addition to the above, we also note that the ld. CIT-A has clear given finding that the assessee during the assessment proceedings has clarified the entries reflecting in the statements three times, manner of the profit to be determined from these statements which were tallying with the materials provided by FT & TR division. From the above it is clear that the assessing officer was furnished sufficient opportunity for his comments/ remarks in the remand report to show whether the cash & metal ledger statements are derivative trading or Bank Transaction but he failed to clarify the same. Similarly, the assessing officer did not point out any defect in the calculation & the determination of profit from these statements as sugges....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [This is Revenue's ground no. 2 in ITA No. 46/RJT/2019 for AY 2010-11; and ground no.4 in ITA No. 48/RJT/2019, for AY 2012-13] 13. This summarized ground is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot, in assessee`s own case, in ITA No. 160 & 161/Rjt/2018, IT(SS) A No.92 & 93/Rjt/2018, vide order dated 09/10/2018, wherein the Tribunal held ad follows; 22. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. In the instant case the assessing officer made the addition on the basis of entries found in the STCSH (Precious LON) metal ledger statement (unallocated Gold) and STCSH (Precious LON) metal ledger statement (unallocated silver) received from Singapore revenue authorities. As per the assessing officer, the corresponding entries of these statements are also showing in cash ledger but assessee did not record these entries in his books. 22.1 Assessee in his submission to assessing officer explained the meaning of dr/cr entries in these ledgers and also submitted annexure 'A' which is also submitted before us in Paper book-1 part (ii) at page no.126. In this annexure, assessee tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Revenue. 15. In the result, following grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed: (i) Revenue's ground no. 2 in ITA No. 46/RJT/2019 for AY 2010-11; and (ii) Ground no.4 of Revenue in ITA No. 48/RJT/2019, for AY 2012-13. 16. Revenue`s Summarized and concise ground no.3 is reproduced below for ready reference: "Ground No.3 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,32,94,413/- made on account of cash/premium payment reflected in STCSH Account. [This is Revenue's ground no. 3 in ITA No. 46/RJT/2019, for AY 2010-11, ground no. 4 in ITA No. 47/RJT/2019 for AY 2011-12, ground no. 5 in ITA No. 48/RJT/2019 for AY 201213, ground no. 5 in ITA No. 49/RJT/2019 for AY 2013-14 and ground no. 4 in ITA No. 102/RJT/2019 for AY 2014-15]..." 17. This ground is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot, in ITA No. 160 & 161/Rjt/2018, IT(SS) A No.92 & 93/Rjt/2018, vide order dated 09/10/2018, wherein the Tribunal held ad follows; 26. We have heard the contentions and perused the materials ava....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as per KYC documents of Undisclosed Foreign Bank Account. [This common ground no.4 is in revenue appeal in ITA No. 46/RJT/2019 for AY 2010-11, ground no. 5 in ITA No. 47/RJT/2019 for AY 2011-12, ground no. 6 in ITA No. 48/RJT/2019 for AY 2012-13, ground no.6 in ITA No. 49/RJT/2019 for AY 2013-14 and ground no.6 in ITA No. 102/RJT/2019 for AY 2014-15]. 21. This summarized ground is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot, in ITA No. 160 & 161/Rjt/2018, IT(SS) A No.92 & 93/Rjt/2018, vide order dated 09/10/2018, wherein the Tribunal held as follows: "43. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. We have already mentioned above in Para no. 11.1 that the search proceedings are special proceedings which require the addition in respect of only those items which are based upon incriminating material found during the search and supported by corroborative evidence. However, the assessing officer, in this case, has made the addition for unexplained investment in property at Ahmadabad and Mumbai only by the self-declaration given by assessee in KYC form filed to the bank at the time of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authorities below. 43.4 We also note that the assessing officer was aware of the addresses of the properties situated in Ahmadabad and Mumbai, but he did not exercise his power given under the statute i.e. 133(6) and 131 of the Act to unearth the fact. In the cases where the assessing officer proposes addition under section 69A of the Act, the onus lies on the Revenue to prove the undisclosed investment. Regarding this, we find support & guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the commissioner of income tax vs. Ravi Kumar reported in 168 Taxman150 wherein the head notes of the case reads as under: "Section 69A, read with section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 -Unexplained moneys - Assessment year 1988-89 - Assessee was a jeweller - During a search carried out at his premises, certain gold ornaments, cash and loose slips containing some calculations were found and seized - Assessing Officer applied section 69A and completed assessment by including amounts appearing on slips - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld those additions, but Tribunal deleted same, holding that assessee had discharged onus by explaining that slips contained rough calculations a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rofit of around $ 500k for last year. * For the other business he is in, are family businesses and co-owned with his father and brother as listed below. Rajkot Galvanizers Pvt. Ltd. - supplies mobile towers to Relieance Communications. They are supposed to be the sole suppliers for Reliance, Star Barrels Indus Pvt. Ltd. - supplies barrels to Reliance Industries(refinery) Ship Developers - Property development arm. They build an apartment block a year and will only sell between 80-85%. The rest will be retained in there portfolio. Hotel Orbit Park Inn in Jamnagar - The family is 50% owner of this hotel." 43.8 In view of the above we are inclined to delete the addition made by assessing officer and subsequently confirmed by the ld. CIT-A on this ground. Therefore we direct the assessing officer to delete this addition. In the result, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed" 44. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground no 5.0 is that CITA erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,79,175/- on account of alleged deemed rental income on account of alleged unexplained investment in property at Ahmadabad. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee and assessment order has been carefully considered. As per section 36, the following expenses are to be disallowed: a. Those which are not revenue in nature. b. Those which are not incidental to business or are personal in nature. c. Those not actually incurred or not incurred during the year. The expenditure incurred and claimed in P&L account falls in none of the above category. The assessing officer nowhere established that funds of the assessee were diverted for his personal purposes. Nor was it established that the expenses were not part of the business of the assessee and that the expenses did not pertain to the year under consideration. In fact, even the addition made of peak has been deleted supra. The assessee is a trader of bullion having substantial turnover and hence, financial charges are part and parcel of his business. It can only be disallowed if there is any irregularity. Only on the premise that the assessee has fund and there is no need for him to raise fund and thus pay interest, is only hypothetical. Addition merely on the basis of a surmise, fails to survive. The assessee has incurred the expense in the course ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8 in ITA No. 48/RJT/2019 for AY 2012-13] 29. This summarized and concise ground no.6 of Revenue, is covered in favour of the assessee, by the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot, in ITA No. 160 & 161/Rjt/2018, IT(SS) A No.92 & 93/Rjt/2018, vide order dated 09/10/2018, wherein the Tribunal held as follows: "99. We have heard the rival contention and perused the materials on record. The issue in the instant relates to the addition made by assessing officer on account of purchase of cheque/DD in lieu of cash form M/s Siddnath Enterprises. 100. The allegation of the assessing officer is that the assessee even after providing the specific details of transaction carried out by him with M/s Siddhnath Enterprise, failed to submit the complete contra entries in his books of account. Accordingly, these entries were added to the income of the assessee. 101. The assessee in support of his claim has filed confirmation from M/s Siddhnath Enterprise before the ld. CIT(A) wherein M/s Siddhnath Enterprise have clarified that transaction appearing in the books of assessee is full and complete list of transaction carried out with the assessee. 102. We....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the pricelist itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2216 of 2000, order dated 17.03.2005 was passed remitting the case back to the Tribunal with the directions to decide the appeal on merits giving its reasons for accepting or rejecting the submissions. 8. In view the above, we are of the opinion that if the testimony of these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department on the basis of which it could justify its action, as the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses was the only basis of issuing the Show-Cause Notice" 104. The assessee also contended that the name 'Shreeji trading co.' is very commonly used commercially. Thus there is a very high possibility that these un-reconciled transactions might have carried out with some other party having same name. In this regard, we find that the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals)-11, Ahmedabad [CIT(A)] erred on facts as also in law in rejecting ground of appeal related to validity of notice issue u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to the "Act"]. That on facts as also in law, initiation of action u/s. 153A of the Act is invalid and assessment made on such invalid initiation deserves to be quashed and may kindly be quashed and the order passed u/s. 153A of the Act without there being any incriminating material is totally unjustified on facts as also in law and may kindly be quashed". 33. This summarized ground is covered against the assessee by the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Rajkot, in ITA No. 160 & 161/Rjt/2018, IT(SS) A No.92 & 93/Rjt/2018 vide order dated 09/10/2018, wherein the Tribunal held as follows: "36. The ld. AR before us has not challenged the validity of the order framed under section 153A of the Act. Therefore we dismiss the ground no. 2 of the appeal of the assessee." 34. Since the issue is covered against the assessee, by the order of the Jurisdictional ITAT Rajkot, in assessee`s own case, vide order date 09.10.2018, noted above, and there is no change in facts and law. Therefore,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there is no change in facts and law. The Ld. DR for the Revenue has accepted the findings of the Tribunal. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee`s own case, we dismiss summarized ground no.8 raised by the assessee. 40. In the result, following grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed: (i) Ground of assessee, vide ground no.4 in IT(SS) No. 6/RJT/2019 for AY 2010-11, (ii) Ground no. 4 in IT(SS) No. 7/RJT/2019 for AY 2011-12, (iii) Ground no. 5 in IT(SS) No. 8/RJT/2019 for AY 2012-13 and (iv) Ground no. 3 in IT(SS) No. 9/RJT/2019 for AY 2014-15. 41. Revenue`s Summarized and concise ground no.9 is reproduced below for ready reference: (9) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,38,33,795/- made on account of unexplained credit entries in unallocated gold/silver account of STCSH. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 80,50,21,862/- made on account of unexplained credit entries in unallocated gold....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orting bullion should follow the procedure of separate bill of each purchase for issuing of invoice because rates are decided individually for each indent/lot. 18.5 On the other hand assessee contended that invoice is raised by STC and raising invoice is not in his hands. Therefore whatever invoice is raised by STC he has duly recorded in his books which assessing officer also have not doubted. This is the reason STC issues multiple invoices because assessee sometimes lifts the bullion from port in parts due to shortage of funds and lack of demand etc. 18.6 The assessing officer in his order observed that as per standard procedure a separate bill for each purchase should be issued by the canalizing agencies i.e. state trading corporation as the rate is decided for each indent/lot. However assessing officer did not mention whether it is his procedure which he wants agencies to follow or it is the procedure laid down under any law or it is a common practice which is being followed by other importing agencies or whatever it is best known to assessing officer. However in each case addition made by assessing officer will not sustain. It is because the assessin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 48. The Revenue`s summarized and concise ground no.11 is reproduced below for ready reference: "(11) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,27,20,642/- made on account of income earned out of credit entries in undisclosed foreign Bank Account (RAK Bank, Dubai)." [This is Revenue's ground vide ground No. 2 in ITA No. 48/RJT/2019 for AY 2012-13 and ITA No. 49/RJT/2019 for AY 2013-14 and ground no. 5 in ITA No. 102/RJT/2019 for AY 2014-15] 49. Brief facts of the issue in dispute are stated as under. The assessing officer vide para 8.5 of the assessment order held that Bank Account with RAK Bank, Dubai belongs to the assessee. The assessee failed to explain transactions made in the said account and also failed to reconcile entries of the said accounts with his books of account. The assessee, submitted written submission before the assessing officer and explained the transactions, however, the assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee and held that it is not clear that which type of this account pertain to, and what are the transactions therein. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ank's cash ledger (on account of profit) is transferred to RAK Bank Account. Thus, the allegation of the assessing officer that the assessee failed to reconcile the entries in the RAK Bank Account is totally misplaced. Thus, the funds deposited are transferred from the account with Standard Bank, which are verifiable from the cash ledger statement of the Standard Bank. Therefore, funds deposited in the impugned bank account are not new funds from any outsider(s), but the same represents the withdrawable profit/income from the Standard Bank account. In view of the above, once the income/profit from the transactions carried out in the Standard Bank account is taxed, there cannot be separate addition on account of remittance of such profit in another bank account, i.e. RAK Bank Account. This way, ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the submissions made before the ld. CIT(A) and stated that conclusion reached by the ld. CIT(A) is correct, and therefore his findings may be accepted. 54. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Standard Bank's cash ledger statement (Trading Account) no. 13446/PANKJ. The funds taken out from the Standard Bank's Trading Account are credited/deposited into RAK Bank Account and therefore, credits in the RAK Bank cannot be said to be unexplained credits. This finding is verifiable from the account statement of Standard Bank vis-à-vis bank statement of RAK Bank submitted by the assessee, that all the credits in the RAK Bank Account are flowing out from the Standard Bank's PANKJ/13446 account after deduction of very nominal remittance charges. Further charges are uniform that is, USD 15 and 26. Therefore, the nature of credit in the RAK Bank Account along with relevant supporting evidences, stands explained. In the remand report, the assessing officer had raised apprehension that the nexus could not be proved as the amount differs. However, it was noted by ld. CIT(A) that the minor difference in amount is due to deduction of remittance charges, which cannot be ruled out. Even dates mentioned in Standard Bank is also matching with dates in RAK Bank which is tabularized by the assessee in his written submission. Here the credit entries in the RAK Bank are sourc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, capacity of the creditors and the genuineness of the transaction. Since, as per assessing officer, the assessee had failed to discharge the onus, the assessing officer made addition to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/- u/s.68 of the Act. 59. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. The ld CIT(A) noted that the amount was received through proper banking channel and the same was settled by way of transfer of physical gold and the same are duly reflected and offered as sales in the relevant year's Trading account. This fact is confirmed from the books of accounts. Thus, as the amount credited in the books, was towards sale, which has in any way credit in the books as income in the subsequent year and not disputed by the assessing officer in assessment order, therefore, the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition. 60. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before us. Learned DR for the revenue submitted that during the year, under consideration, the assessee had received Rs. 25 lakhs from M/s Jay Khodiyar Dairy Farm and as per section 68, the onus is upon the assessee to explain the identity of the creditors, capacity of the creditors and the genuinenes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....London. The addition retained is totally unjustified and uncalled, for which deserves to be deleted and may kindly be deleted. [This is the ground raised by the assessee, vide ground no. 4 in IT(SS) No. 8/RJT/2019 for AY 2012-13]" 64. We advert to the relevant facts qua the above summarized ground. This ground relates to the addition of Rs. 83,39,200/- made u/s 69A of the Act on account of alleged unexplained credits in Cash Ledger Statement of Standard Bank, London. The assessing officer, during the assessment proceedings noticed that the cash ledger statement of the Standard Bank in respect of account PANKJ/13446, there are several non-settlement entries and these entries are in the nature of funds (in US Dollars) credited and debited in the course of business transactions. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted written submission before the assessing officer stating that since the account was opened at the instance of Shri Mehul Nandha, the assessee is not the beneficiary of such transactions. However, assessing officer, rejected the contention of the assessee and stated that the credit entries reflected in the cash ledger statement remai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such wrong posting or error of any entries pertains to the assessment year under consideration. Hence, this contention was also rejected by ld CIT(A). The assessee also stated before ld CIT(A) that the assessee had furnished confirmations from depositors namely, M/s. Deepu Jewellers LLC and M/s. Sanman Electronics. However, it was observed by ld CIT(A) that the assessee had not received any funds from said concerns in the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, there is no relevance of said confirmations for deciding the issue under consideration and thus, the said contention of the assessee was also rejected by ld CIT(A). Since the funds are credited into the cash ledger statement of the assessee, it is his onus to explain the source of such funds. The assessee failed to explain source of funds credited into the cash ledger statement. Thus, the addition of Rs. 83,39,200/- made by the assessing officer was confirmed by ld CIT(A). We have gone through the above findings of the ld. CIT(A) and noted that ld. CIT(A) has reached on right conclusion. In our humble opinion, the aforesaid claim of the assessee is not tenable. Therefore, after having regard to the given facts and ci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 5,90,00,000/- was generated out of unaccounted cash receipts of M/s. Shreeji Reality which has been offered to tax in the case of M/s. Shreeji Reality and accepted by Hon'ble ITSC. So far as balance amount of stock of Rs. 7,46,92,500/-, ( Rs. 13,36,92,500 Rs. 5,90,00,000), the assessee stated that the same was generated from unaccounted business income, which has been considered in the audited financial statements and offered to tax. The assessing officer, however stated that the assessee's methodology of acquiring unaccounted stock is not acceptable and that the assessee has not shown the unaccounted stock of bullion in the computation of income out rightly. On this background, the assessing officer added the sum of Rs. 7,46,92,500/- as unexplained income of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act. 75. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. The ld CIT(A) noted that assessee had admitted the unaccounted stock of Rs. 7,46,92,500/-, as his unaccounted income and the same has been recorded in his books of account. Further, on the basis of book results, including the unaccounted income of Rs. 7,46,92,500/-, the assessee furnished the return of income and paid tax accord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.1, wherein, contention of the CIT(A) and CIT(DR) has been discussed, which is similar to the finding of the assessing officer in the assessment order. As against this, argument made by the assessee has also been discussed at length. Finally, Hon'ble ITSC concluded the issue on following remark: "13.1.3 in result thereof, as regard the first issue, it is held that the applicant's claim of telescoping of Rs. 5,90,00,000/- and declaration of unaccounted income of Rs. 7,46,92,500/- in the Assessment Year 2014-15 in respect of unaccounted stock in trade of gold bullion found of Rs. 13,36,92,500/- is accepted." In view of the above, it is clear that the total income offered to tax in the return of income filed by the assessee includes the unaccounted income of Rs. 7,46,92,500/- representing the excess stock found during the search. Hence, the addition made by the assessing officer is without looking into the books of the assessee, therefore, ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. Therefore, after having regard to the given facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, the action of the ld. CITA) does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the ground ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cord. (ii). However, confirmation of concerned parties has been called for and will be immediately submitted on receipt of the same." 82. However, the assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee and observed that the assessee failed to substantiate his claim, therefore, an amount of Rs. 23,20,000/- was treated as income of the assessee. 83. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the assessing officer, therefore, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 84. Learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that so far as source of advances given as per the noting made in the seized paper, are concerned, these are the temporary advances given out of the unaccounted business income of Rs. 7,47,00,000/-, declared in the audited financial statements and paid the due taxes thereon, and such advances were received back to him (assessee). Besides, there is no signature of the assessee on these documents, and moreover, no date is mentioned. Therefore, these are the dump documents, and hence the addition should not be made in the hands of the assessee. 85. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the....