9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that:- it is undisputed that the purchase consideration in the alleged immovable properties have been paid by the respective persons in whose name the property has been registered and their source of income is not doubted as Mr. G.P. Sinha is a retired person who paid the amount out of the accumulated savings and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha has paid amount out of the disclosed source of income earned from outside India. Therefore the allegation of the revenue authorities that the investment of 46 lakh in the properties in the name of Shri G.P. Sinha and Shri Shailendra Kumar Sinha is unaccounted investment of the assessee seems baseless as all the evidences are on record which clearly prove that the owners of the properties have paid consideration for acquiring deed and there is no evidence to show that the alleged investment in the properties has been made by the assessee. Therefore addition for unaccounted investment u/s 69 of the Act stands deleted. As far as the property of Smt. Vinita Parashar is concerned it is true that the original sale deed was seized from the residence of the appellant but in response to the summon issued to Smt. Vinita Parashar, her father namely Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we find that entitlement of total salary as on 31.3.2012 is 1,90,720/- and the alleged amount of 1,73,352/- is received against the outstanding receivable amount. Further total salary due on 31.3.2013 is 23,368/- (Rs.1,90,720 (-) 1,73,352/-). Therefore there remains no basis for the addition of 1,73,352/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e). Unaccounted credits in the bank - Held that:- The bank statement of Shri R.P. Sinha is filed. Ld. CIT(A) did not delete the addition for the alleged amount and confirmed it. It is also noticed that Shri R.P. Sinha was available during the course of search as well as during the course of assessment. In these given facts the claim of the assessee that 3,00,000/- has been received from Shri R.P. Sinha could be verified by the Ld.A.O in order to satisfy about the source of the credit entry in the bank account which is claimed to have been received from the bank account of Shri R.P. Sinha for necessary verification with the assistance of the assessee, after providing him necessary opportunity of being heard. Ground No. 5 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nating material found during the course of search. 3. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 25,99,548/- on account of alleged unaccounted credits in bank account u/s 69 of the Act. 4. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on account of unaccounted cash deposit of ₹ 5,82,000/-. 5. That the ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 9,01,312/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. That the ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on account of alleged undisclosed perquisites as undisclosed receipts of ₹ 3,61,666/- u/s 17(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. 7. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Assessment Year 2009-10 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case :- 1. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2. That the additions are illegal and bad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in sustaining the addition of ₹ 3,00,000/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Assessment Year 2012-13 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case :- 1. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2. That the additions are illegal and bad in law as they are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- on account of alleged unaccounted credits in bank account u/s 69 of the Act. 4. That the ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 32,50,769/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 63,50,000/- on account of alleged un accounted investment u/s 69 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.O Relief by CIT(A) Income after CIT(A) order 2007-08 4,48,025 57,99,832 9,10,933 38,88,899 2008-09 9,90,120 45,18,651 74,125 44,44,526 2009-10 21,93,050 51,70,682 74,300 37,73,487 2010-11 21,11,270 6,99,200 - 6,99,200 2011-12 18,47,310 3,20,000 - 3,20,000 2012-13 42,01,330 1,01,10,769 - 1,01,00,769 2013-14 50,01,710 44,61,950 38,000 44,23,950 5. Ground No. 1 raised in appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2013-14 is general in nature and therefore needs no adjudication. 6. Ground No. 2 has been raised commonly for Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2013-14 by which assessee has challenged the additions being not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 7. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring and relying on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT (Central)-III vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Delhi) submitted that during the search proceeding at the assessee's premises no incriminating material was found. The additions made for Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2011-12 are merely on the basis of information available with the Assessing Officer during the course of search ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... From going through the additions made for Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2011-12, we find that the addition relating to unaccounted credits in the bank account and unaccounted cash deposits were made on the basis of bank account details called for during the course of assessment proceedings and it is an admitted fact that these bank accounts were disclosed in the regular return of income filed by the assessee. Similarly deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act were for the transactions for the properties purchased by the assessee from regular source of income. In the similar fashion the undisclosed perquisite were made by the Ld.A.O on the basis of salary details vis-à-vis ledger account of the assessee in the books of Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd. This shows that the additions made for Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2011-12 emerges out of the details and documents called during the course of assessment proceedings and no mention has been made by the Ld.A.O about any incriminating material found during the course of search at the premises of the assessee which could have live link with the additions made. In these given facts there remains no dispute that the additions for Assessment Year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on only on the basis of seized material." v. In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in Section 153 A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the AO. vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. Conclusion 38. The present appeals concern AYs, 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07.On the date of the search t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of ₹ 15,00,000/- divided into three parts i.e. ₹ 5,00,000/- each. Thus the amount of ₹ 5,00,000/- has been received by the assessee against the salary as a Director which has been disclosed in the regular return of income. Therefore the alleged transaction being duly explained no addition was called for u/s 69 of the Act. In the result ground No.3 of the assessee is allowed. 17. Now we take up Ground No.4 for Assessment Year 2012-13 which relates to the addition of ₹ 32,50,769/- made by the Ld.A.O as the deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) for various amounts received during the year from M/s. Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd of which the assessee is the Director. 18. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. It has been the consistent stand of the assessee that the alleged amount of ₹ 32,50,769/- received in parts during the year majorly includes amount received towards salary from M/s. Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd as well as receipts towards share of joint venture project which stands duly disclosed in the regular books of accounts of M/s. Soumya Homes Pvt.Ltd and the same are verifiable from the documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f clarifications details of the seized document, description of the property, name of the purchaser and amount paid by the purchaser is mentioned below; Sr.No Ref Description Name of Purchaser 11 FS-5, LPS 1/1, Pg 62- 93 50. (PB 273-298) Sale Deed between M/s Fortune Soumya Housing Office at Fortune House, Plot No. 157, Zone-I , MP Nagar Bhopal through its partner Shri Sameer Gupta S/o Shri Ajay Mohgaonkar S/o S. W. Mohgaonkar & Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd. 69/A, Zone-2, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal though Director Shri Sanjay Kumar Sinha S/O Shri R.P. Sinha (Seller) and the purchaser is Shri G.P. Sinha S/O Late Shri Y.N. Shina R/O 58, Soumya Estate, Khajuri Kalan, Bhopal (M.P.) purchasing one freehold residential Plot no. C-57 Plot area 1158 Sq. ft. Situated at Tulip Greens, Gram Mahabadia, teshil Huzur, Distt. Bhopal for total sale consideration of ₹ 1082600/- dated 31.03.2012. Shri G P Sinha, R/O 58, Soumya Estate, Khajuri kalan, Bhopal. 2. FS-5 as per LPS- 1/2, page No. to 21 54. (PB 253-261) Sale Deed between M/s Fortune Soumya Housing Office at Fortune House, Plot No. 157, Zone-I , MP Nagar Bhopal through its partner Shri Sameer Gupta S/o Shri Ajay Mohgaonkar S/o S. W. Moh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y worth ₹ 17,50,000/-. 24. On examining the details we observe that the properties are in the name of Shri G.P. Sinha who is the father in law of the assessee and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha who is the sister-in-laws husband of the assessee are close relatives. The father-in-law is very old and brother in law is Non Resident Indian. We find that payment for acquiring this properties have been made through account payee cheque by Mr. G.P. Sinha, Shailendra Kumar Sinha respectively and the transactions are duly accounted in the books of accounts of M/s. Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd. Complete details of bank account of Shri G.P. Sinha are fully explained and the investment are on the record with the revenue authorities. Assessment u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act was completed in the case of Shri Shailendra Kumar Sinha wherein the investment and return of income were accepted. Thus it is undisputed that the purchase consideration in the alleged immoveable properties have been paid by the respective persons in whose name the property has been registered and their source of income is not doubted as Mr. G.P. Sinha is a retired person who paid the amount out of the accumulated savings and M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act for unaccounted credits in bank account made by Ld.A.O and sustained by Ld.CIT(A) is concerned, brief facts are that during the course of search at the residential premises of Shri Rajeev Sharma who is one of the Director of M/s Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd document LPS-1, page No. 25 was seized which shows some calculations. On this piece of documents against the figure of ₹ 30,51,949/- shown balance, amount of ₹ 20 lakhs with a particular of word "SS" was reduced and remaining amount of ₹ 10,51,949/- was shown. Mr. Rajeev Sharma denied to have any information about this paper. Ld.A.O treated the word "SS" being referred to Mr. Sanjay Sinha and made the addition of ₹ 30,51,949/- as unexplained transaction. Assessee failed to get any relief by Ld.CIT(A). 28. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 29. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and also carefully gone through the judgment relied and referred by the assessee in his written submissions. The issue raised in this Ground No.3 for the Assessment year 2013-14 relates to the addition of ₹ 30,50,950/- for alleged unaccounted transaction. The basis of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be made on the basis of the evidence found with third party". 33. In light of above judgments as well as in the given facts and circumstances of the case we find no justification for addition of ₹ 30,51,950/- for the alleged unaccounted transactions in the hands of the assessee as the seized document was found at the residence of third party i.e. Mr. Rajeev Sharma and no particular of the transaction with date was mentioned nor there was any direct connection with the assessee, therefore such addition seems to be made merely on suspicion and devoid of any corroborative evidence which could prove the alleged additions of the Ld.A.O. We accordingly allow Ground No.3 of assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 and delete the addition of ₹ 30,51,950/-. 34. Apropos Ground No.4 for the addition of unaccounted cash deposits of ₹ 5,30,000/-, brief facts are that in the assessment proceedings when details of bank account was called for. Ld.A.O while examining the bank account observed that there were various cash deposits. Ld.A.O was not satisfied with the explanations and thus made the addition of ₹ 5,68,000/- to the total of unexplained cash deposits. Whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Shri Sanjay Kumar Sinha are general in nature which needs no adjudication. 39. In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2011-12 are allowed, appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 and Assessment Year 2013-14 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 40. Now we will take up appeals No. IT(SS)156 to 161/Ind/2017 & ITA No.429/Ind/2017 in the case of Smt. Anjana Sinha for Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2013-14 wherein following grounds are raised; Assessment Year 2007-08 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case :- 1. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2. That the additions are illegal and bad in law as they are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of unaccounted cash deposit of ₹ 40,000/- 4. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 2,72,637/- on account of alleged booking of unaccounted business loss. 7. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Assessment Year 2010-11 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case :- 1. The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2. That the additions are illegal and bad in law as they are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on account of unaccounted cash deposit of ₹ 25,000/-.. 4. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 7,530/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 4,98,330/- on account of alleged booking of unaccounted business looses. 6. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2. That the additions are illegal and bad in law as they are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. That the ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on account of unaccounted cash deposit of ₹ 1,55,000/- 4. That the ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 1,70,352/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act,1961. 5. That the ld CIT(A) erred in making addition of ₹ 3,00,000/- on account of alleged unaccounted credits in bank account u/s 69 of the act. 6. That the ld CIT(A) erred in making addition of ₹ 5,46,800/- on account of undisclosed cap[ital gains. 7. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. 41. Ground No.1 raised in these appeals are general in nature which needs no adjudication. 42. Ground No.2 has been raised by the assessee raising common ground that additions were not based on incriminating material found during the course of search. We have dealt this issue while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Year 2012-13. 47. Apropos Ground No.3 relating to addition of ₹ 4,00,622/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has given the complete details of explanation of alleged amount. We find that the assessee Smt. Anjana Sinha is drawing salary from M/s. Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd. ₹ 2,50,000/- is alleged to have been received as salary ₹ 1,42,414/- is claimed to be income tax refund and ₹ 8,082/- miscellaneous receipts. Primarily it shows that the alleged amount is not coming under the category of deemed dividend but still being fair to both the parties we set aside the issue to the file of Ld.A.O to make necessary verification of the details to be provided by assessee after being provided reasonable opportunity of being heard. Ground No.3 of the assessee for Assessment Year 2012-13 is thus allowed for statistical purposes. 48. Apropos Ground No.4 for the addition on account of alleged undisclosed perquisite as undisclosed receipts of ₹ 1,05,100/- u/s 17(2)(iii) of the Act, brief facts of the case are that during the course of search proceedings it was noticed that the assessee purchased some properties from M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee on being provided sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore Ground No.3 is allowed for statistical purposes. 53. Apropos Ground No.4 which relates to addition of ₹ 1,70,352/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act, on perusal of the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the assessee and also after going through the records placed before us and statements of Ld. Departmental Representative we find that entitlement of total salary as on 31.3.2012 is ₹ 1,90,720/- and the alleged amount of ₹ 1,73,352/- is received against the outstanding receivable amount. Further total salary due on 31.3.2013 is ₹ 23,368/- (Rs.1,90,720 (-) ₹ 1,73,352/-). Therefore there remains no basis for the addition of ₹ 1,73,352/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e). Ground No.4 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 54. Apropos Ground No.5 for the addition of ₹ 3,00,000/- on account of alleged unaccounted credits in the bank. It is contended that this amount is loan taken from the assessee's father in law Shri R.P. Sinha. The bank statement of Shri R.P. Sinha is filed at paper book page 228. Ld. CIT(A) did not delete the addition for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case :- 1. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2. That the additions are illegal and bad in law as they are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of unaccounted cash deposit of ₹ 2,50,000/- 4. That the ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on account of alleged undisclosed perquisites as undisclosed receipts of ₹ 3,89,300/- u/s 17(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. 5. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Assessment Year 2010-11 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case :- 1. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2. That the additions are illegal and bad in law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2. That the additions are illegal and bad in law as they are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. That the ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on account of unaccounted cash deposit of ₹ 3,99,000/- 4. That the ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 30,51,950/- on account of alleged transactions with Shri Sanjay Sinha. 5. That the ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 4,67,450/- on account of cash found during search and treating that as unexplained cash. 6. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. 60. Ground No.1 raised in these appeals are general in nature which needs no adjudication. 61. Ground No.2 has been commonly raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 to Assessment Year 2013-14 challenging the addition as they were not based on incriminating material found during the course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g aside the issue for verification of cash flow statement contending that there was sufficient cash in hand to explain the source of cash deposits. The month wise cash withdrawal and deposit statement from Axis Bank and Indian Overseas Bank is placed at page No.18-20 of the synopsis. We accordingly set aside the issue and direct the Ld. A.O to verify the working of the cash flow statement and in case there is sufficient cash in hand with the assessee at various dates of cash deposits then no addition should be made. Necessary opportunity of being heard should be made available to the assessee to file the cash flow statement. We therefore set aside the issue to the file of Ld.A.O. Accordingly Ground No.3 of the assessee's appeal is set aside for statistical purposes. 65. Apropos Ground No.4 pertaining to deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act at ₹ 13,42,709/-, we have gone through the records as well as the statements made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us. It is contended that as on 31.3.2011 the outstanding salary is ₹ 1,06,492/- and during financial year 2011-12 (Assessment Year 2012-13) the salary receivable during the year is ₹ 13,02,500/- which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee is in appeal before us. 69. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The loose paper appearing in LPS-1 page No.25 seized from the assessee's premises was the basis of the addition of unaccounted transaction of ₹ 30,51,950/-. Assessee failed to give any information about this document and also stated that it has not been written by him. There was no evidence to prove that it is in appellant's handwriting. We observe that during the search no evidence of any personal bilateral transactions between the families of Directors was found and the document not in the hand writing. Charge can be leveled on the assessee only when the document itself is a speaking one. Assessee by itself or in the company of other material found on investigation and/ or in the search for the document should be clear and unambiguous. Firstly it should be clear about the transaction/event which attracts the levy, secondly the person on whom the levy is to be imposed and who is obliged to pay the tax, thirdly assessment year in which charge of income tax is levied, fourth whether any taxable income arises from the transactions. In absence of all these characteristics t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case :- 1. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2. That the additions are illegal and bad in law as they are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of alleged undisclosed receipts of ₹ 6,31,240/- from M/s. Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd.. 4. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of alleged undisclosed perquisites of ₹ 10,46,700/- u/s 72(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. 5. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Assessment Year 2010-11 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case :- 1. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2. That the additions are illegal and ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in the circumstances of the case :- 1. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2. That the additions are illegal and bad in law as they are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. That the ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on account of unaccounted cash deposit of ₹ 70,000/- 4. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of alleged undisclosed capital gains of ₹ 16,39,600/-. 5. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of alleged undisclosed cash found amounting to ₹ 7,26,200/- 6. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. 75. Ground No.1 for Assessment Year 2009-10 to Assessment Year 2013-14 are general in nature which needs no adjudication. As regards for Assessment Year 2009-10 to 2013-14 are concerned, as decided by us in the case of other assessee's in the preced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... page 17-18 of written synopsis and it is claimed that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand to explain the cash deposited in the bank accounts disclosed in the regular return of income. We therefore set aside this issue to the file of Ld. A.O for necessary verification and if satisfied may delete the addition. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 78. Apropos to Ground No.4 for undisclosed receipt of ₹ 1,63,376/- from Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd it has been contended before us that the alleged amount is not undisclosed receipts as it was received in connection with the salary account held by the assesseein the books of M/s. Soumya Homes Pvt.Ltd. We find that as on 1.4.2011 the opening balance ₹ 1,76,264/- salary payable, salary payable during the year was ₹ 11,91,100 and the amount paid during the year was ₹ 9,42,349/- which left a closing balance of ₹ 4,25,015/- as on 31.3.2012. On the contrary the working given by the Ld.A.O contains certain irregularities as the figures taken in the working are not correct. Therefore this issue needs to set aside to the file of Ld.A.O to make a fresh working inconsonance with the correct calculation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 16,39,600/-, at the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for not pressing this ground and therefore this ground is dismissed as not pressed and addition of ₹ 16,39,600/- is confirmed. 83. In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as under; Shri Sanjay Kumar Sinha S.No. Appeal No. Assessment Year Result 1 IT(SS) No.150 to 154/Ind/2017 2007-08 to 2011-12 Allowed 2 IT(SS)No.155/Ind/2017 2012-13 Partly allowed for statistical purpose. 3 ITA No.428/Ind/2017 2013-14 Partly allowed for statistical purpose. Smt. Anjana Sinha 1 IT(SS) No.156 to 160/Ind/2017 2007-08 to 2011-12 Allowed 2 IT(SS) No.161/Ind/2017 2012-13 Partly allowed for statistical purpose. 3 - 2013-14 Partly allowed for statistical purpose. Shri Rajeev Sharma 1 IT(SS) No.162 to 165/Ind/2017 2008-09 to 2011-12 Allowed 2 IT(SS) No.166/Ind/2017 2012-13 Partly allowed for statistical purpose. 3 - 2013-14 Partly allowed for statistical purpose. Smt. Manju Sharma 1 IT(SS) No.162 to 164/Ind/2017 2009-10 to 2011-12 Allowed 2 IT(SS) No.165/Ind/2017 2012-13 Partly allowed for statistical purpose. 3 ITANo.427/Ind/2017 2013-14 Partly allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
