9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the hands of MOPL Whether the gross amount of on money received should be subject to tax without allowing the deduction of the expenditure recorded in the seized documents? - As it is a fact on records that on money was reflecting in the seized documents. Such seized document was the basis of making the addition of such on money. It is also a fact on record that there were expenditures incurred against the on money as evident from the same set of seized documents. In our considered view these documents should be read as a whole. Such seized documents cannot be used as the basis for making the addition without giving the deduction of the expenses appearing in the seized documents - we hold that the assessee (MOPL) is very much entitled for the expenses appearing in the seized documents against the on money which was not recorded in the books of accounts like the expenses as discussed above. Income reflecting in the on money can be determined based on some percentage basis - Whether the entire amount of on money should be included in the taxable income or some percentage of profit embedded therein should be worked out? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the money which have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed Whether the assessee is acting as a mutual concern and therefore there cannot be any tax liability on the assessee on mutuality concept? - It is also pertinent to note that there was a ground raised by the assessee in the memo of appeal by stating that the assessee is working in the capacity of mutual organization having no profit motive. Therefore, based on the principles of mutuality there cannot be any income in the hands of the assessee. However, at the time of hearing, we note that the learned AR has not made any argument on this issue. Unexplained peak cash loan - AO during the assessment proceedings based on the seized documents found that the assessee has incurred/paid the interest expenses on the money borrowed in cash - CIT-A has deleted the addition made by the AO by observing that the amount of loan taken in cash was not recorded in the regular books of accounts - HELD THAT:- Whether the loan amount represents the income of the assessee. The answer stands in negative. The loan cannot be treated as income. However, there is a presumption under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of cash. Accordingly we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the authorities below. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. - ITA No.1913 to 1916/Ahd/2011 And ITA No.1807-1808/Ahd/2011 And ITA No.1917-1918/Ahd/2011 And ITA No.1919-1920/Ahd/2011 And ITA No.1775-1776/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 8-11-2021 - Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice President And Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member For the Revenue : Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT. D.R For the Assessee : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.R ORDER PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The above captioned appeals have been filed by the different assessee and the revenue for different assessment years against the orders of ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) arising in the matter of assessment order passed under section 143(3) and 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income tax Act 1961 ( in short the Act ) involving respective Assessment Years. 2. The issue raised by the different assessee is common in all the appeals filed by them in different assessment years. Therefore, these are clubbed together for sake of brevity, convenience and adjudication. For the purpose of the order, the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aroda has erred in law and in facts in disregarding that the appellant is following the completed method of contracts basis for accounting and accordingly even if the profit is to be estimated / quantified and taxed the same can be recognized only when the project is completed and therefore it deserves to be held that considering the method of accounting employed and also the nature of the case (he profit of the scheme is to be determined only on completion of the project. 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeals)-IV, Baroda has erred in law and in facts while holding that the appellant is engaged in the business of construction has further erred in estimating the net profit @ 10% of the total receipts determined at ₹ 3,60,15,500/-. The addition of ₹ 36,01, 550/- deserves to be deleted. 5. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, delete or substitute to any of the grounds of appeal herein above contained. The Ld. CIT(A) may please be directed to adjudicate and decide the above grounds. 4. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds of appeal herein above contained. 3. The issue raised by the assessee in first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has executed the GPA in favour of MOPL. By virtue of the GPA, MOPL obtained all the rights to negotiate and book the sale of shops/flats on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, MOPL was receiving the money on behalf of the assessee from the intending customers who were willing to buy the shops/flats. The money received by MOPL was subsequently passed on to the assessee which was utilized to meet the construction cost. However, the ownership of the land and the building under construction remained with the assessee only. 6.2 The assessee was following project completion method and therefore whatever amount was received by it was shown as trade advances received from MOPL. Likewise, the cost incurred was classified as capital working progress. Thus, the assessee in the year under consideration has not shown any income from its construction activity on the reasoning that its project was not completed. 6.3 There was a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act at the office premises of the assessee, MOPL and the directors of the companies who were common in majority, dated 23rd March, 1995. As a result of search various incriminating documents were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ords, only the net income being real income of the assessee should only be considered for the purpose of the tax. As such, the entire gross receipt cannot be made subject to the addition to the total income of the assessee. 6.8 However, the AO disregarded the contentions of the assessee by observing that the relationship between the assessee and MOPL is of principal and agent. As such MOPL was acting as a consultant and a booking agent on behalf of the assessee. Furthermore, the on money was collected by MOPL in connection with the sale/booking of flats/units which were constructed by the assessee. Therefore, the assessee is the right person to tax such on money. 6.9 Regarding the deposit of ₹ 98.50 lakhs, the AO found that the amount was recorded under the head member s Contribution . However, the assessee has not furnished the details of the parties/members from whom such amount was received. Similarly, the assessee has also not offered any income on the accounted receipts. Furthermore, the details furnished by the assessee of accounted receipt, the said amount of ₹ 98.50 lacs was not included as accounted income. Thus, in the absence of the necessary detai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, the addition of such payments should be made in the hands of the MOPL. 6.13 However, the AO disagreed with the contention of the assessee by observing that the director namely Shri Ashok C Patel in the statement furnished under section 132(4) of the Act has already disclosed the utilization of the on money. In that disclosure, there was no payment as discussed above was made. Furthermore, the assessee has also not furnished the cash flow statement evidencing that such payments were made out of the on-money receipts. Therefore, the AO was of the view that the payments were made by the MOPL on the instruction of the assessee and treated the same as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. The AO also noted that a sum of ₹ 37,48,700/- out of the impugned payment of ₹ 79,61,125/- pertains to the A.Y. 1994-95 which has already been added to the total income during the assessment proceeding of that year. Thus, the AO, added the remaining amount of ₹ 42,12,425/- (₹ 79,61,125/- minus ₹ 37,48,700/-) to the total income of the assessee as unexplained investment on substantive basis. Similar amount, was also added in the hands of MOPL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iii. Net Profit on accounted Receipts ₹ 56,48,087/- 7. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A). 8. The assessee before the learned CIT (A) besides reiterating the submissions made before the AO during the assessment proceedings, contended that on money receipts should be given the same treatment as given to the recorded receipts for the purpose of determining the taxable income. There were certain documents seized during the search proceedings wherein receipt of on money was recorded along with the expenditures. Once such document has been treated as a piece of evidence for the purpose of treating the on money as income of the assessee, the same piece of document has to be referred for the purpose of the expenses recorded therein. Thus, the AO should not expect other details with respect to the expenses recorded in the seized documents. Thus, the AO cannot pick and choose the information based on the seized documents which is suiting to the Revenue. As such, the seized documents should be taken into consideration as a whole in order to work out the taxable income. Thus, the expenditure re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue is believing the document found during the search depicting the receipt of money then the documents found depicting the payment should also be taken into account while calculating the income of the assessee. Thus, the learned CIT (A) was of the view that the assessee is entitled for the deduction of the unaccounted expenditure which were recorded in the seized papers out of on money receipts. 8.5 The observation of the ld. CIT (A) stands as under: i. The claim of the assessee that ₹ 306 lacs expenses were made out of on money receipts of ₹ 313 lacs is evident from the details recorded in the seized paper. The AO has also referred in his order to such expenses of ₹ 256 Lacs and the expenditure of ₹ 50.88 lacs. Thus, the expenditure incurred out of the on money is evident from the records. ii. However, the finding of the AO can also not be doubted as the expenditures were incurred for illegal purposes, capital in nature and withdrawal of the money by the directors. The assessee has genuine reason not to provide the detailed explanation of the expenditure made as said expenditure were also including illegal payments. iii. In such a situ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts while observing that for determining the above composited 7.5% is considerable as relatable to recorded receipts (d) Parain Anand Builders Pvt. Ltd. 59ITD 29 (Mum.) 15% (e) Parain Anand Builders Pvt. Ltd. 59ITD 29 (Mum.) 8% (f) Parain Anand Builders Pvt. Ltd. 59ITD 29 (Mum.) 6% 8.11 The learned CIT (A) with respect to the profit estimated by the AO at the rate of 25% of the accounted receipt shown by the assessee found that the method adopted by the AO was incorrect. It is for the reason that the AO has taken the accounted receipt only of ₹ 2,25,92,350/- which was showing the full payment received by the assessee against the units sold. As per the learned CIT (A), the AO should have taken the entire amount of receipt in the year under consideration which is at ₹ 3,60,15,500/- to work out the income of the assessee. However, the learned CIT (A) was not convinced with the rate adopted by the AO for determining the income at the rate of 25%. As per the learned CIT (A) such rate of income was on the higher side. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eduction as they were incurred in violation of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, being in the nature of capital expenditure and illegal expenditure. 13. Both the learned AR and the DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them. 14. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The facts of the case have already been elaborated in the preceding paragraph which are not in dispute. Therefore, for the sake of brevity and convenience, we are not inclined to be the same. From the preceding discussion, the following issue arises for our consideration: i. Whether the on money found during the search proceedings are liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee or in the hands of MOPL. ii. Whether the expenditure incurred out of the on money should be adjusted against the on money received. iii. Whether the entire amount of on money should be included in the taxable income or some percentage of profit embedded therein should be worked out. iv. Whether the payment of ₹ 79,61,125/- was made from the unexplained sources. v. Whether the rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same should be taxed in its hands. 14.2 However, at the same time it is also equally important to note that MOPL is a separate entity having its own legal existence. The assessee had no legal power to recover the on money received by MOPL from the customers. The question also arises which of the party was enjoying the on money. It is seen that a sum of ₹ 98.50 lakhs was transferred in the bank account of MOPL which is a significant amount. Had this money been belonging to the assessee, MOPL should not have deposited such amount in its bank account. Thus, if the transaction of on money is seen from the point of beneficial party, then MOPL is such party. Thus, it appears that nothing is wrong if the amount is brought to tax in the hands of MOPL. 14.3 Be that as may be, there are certain undisputed facts that both assessee and MOPL are related parties and chargeable to tax at the maximum marginal rate. Thus, effectively there is no loss to the revenue as far as the collection of taxes is concern after ascertaining the party in whose hand, the income needs to be taxed. In either of the case, the tax money will flow to the Government Exchequer. We also note that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legitimate expenses of the business. Thus, for the purpose of section 10(1) the losses which had actually been incurred in carrying on a particular illegal business must be deducted before the true figure relating to profits which had to be brought to tax could be computed or determined. As for set-off under section 24 of the Act, the High Court held that the loss sustained in the impugned contracts was liable to be set off against the profits from speculative transactions. Under Explanation 2 of proviso to section 24(1), speculative transactions means a transaction in which a contract for the purchase and sale of any commodity is periodically or ultimately settled otherwise than by actual delivery, etc. Now the contract has to be an enforceable contracts and not an unenforceable one by reason of any taint of illegality resulting in its invalidity. In the instant case contract in question were illegal and unenforceable on account of contravention of section 15(4) of the 1952 Act. The High Court was in error in considering that any set-off could be allowed in the instant case under the first proviso to section 24(1) which must be read with Explanation 2. Now, it would have to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted money based on the documentary evidence in the given facts and circumstances. Thus, we are of the view that some element of guesswork is required to work out such income of the assessee. At the time of hearing the ld. DR has not brought anything on record against the finding of the ld. CIT-A. Thus we don t finding any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT-A in the light of the above stated facts and discussion. 14.8 Moving to the next controversy whether the payment of ₹ 79,61,125/- has been paid out of the unexplained sources. In this regard, we find that the learned CIT (A) has duly explained the payment made to the parties against the expenses as recorded in the seized documents. In other words, there were certain expenses which were recorded in the seized documents. Likewise, the cash payment of such expenses were also recorded on the seized documents. As we have already held that the expenses were incurred out of the on money and therefore there cannot be any other addition with respect to the payment of such expenditure. At the time of hearing, the learned DR has not brought anything on record contrary to the finding of the learned CIT (A). Accordingly, we do not f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .10 One more aspect that requires our attention is that once the assessee has adopted the project completion method, then it has to be seen while deciding the issue on hand what is the fate of the income which has been offered by the assessee upon the completion of project? In other words, if the assessee has already offered to tax the income upon the completion of the project, then any addition made in the year under consideration will certain the lead to the double addition which is unwanted under the provisions of law. However, at the time of hearing none of the authorities has brought to our notice the status of the case of the assessee upon the completion of the project. However, we are not inclined to send the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in view of the fact that the appeals before us pertains to the Assessment Years 1992-93 to 1995-96 which are very old years. The substantial time has already been lapsed. On the top of it, learned AR also not made any effort in bringing out the fact for the profit declared by the assessee upon the completion of the project. As such, there was the limited prayer of the assessee before us to estimate the profit. Even bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III Baroda has further erred in law and in facts in holding that the grounds of appeal as decided by his predecessor in Appeal No. CAB/III-133/2000-2001 survive and that he was not required to adjudicate the appeals afresh for want of lawful jurisdiction. 3. The Ld, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Baroda has erred in law and in facts in not deciding the following grounds of appeal as directed by the Hon'ble Tribunal: 1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) IV, Baroda has erred in law and in facts in upholding the action of the Asst. Commr. Of Income Tax, company Circle 1(3), Baroda in disregarding the existence of various legally enforceable agreement with Madhav Organisers Pvt. Ltd., the project consultant and booking agent while misinterpreting the modus operand! of the scheme of the Avishkar Project and therefore it deserves to be held that the appellant's modus operandi of the scheme is to be accepted and it's to be held that the status of the appellant being that of a mutual society no lax can be levied. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals)-lll, Baroda has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Asst. Commr. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by us vide paragraph No. 4 of this order against the assessee. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 18. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 3 and its sub grounds numbers 1 to 5 is that the learned CIT (A) erred in not appreciating the status of the assessee like a mutual benefit society and estimating the net profit of ₹ 29,30,000/- being 10% of the total receipts. 19. At the outset we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the year under consideration is identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1916/AHD/2011 for the assessment year 1995-96. Therefore, the finding given in ITA no. 1916/AHD/2011 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 1994-95. The appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 1995-96 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 14 of this order by allowing the appeal in favour of the assessee in part. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. 19.1 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Coming to ITA No. 1914/AHD/2011 an appeal by assessee for the AY 1993-94. 20. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counting and accordingly even if the profit is to be estimated / quantified and taxed the same can be recognized only when the project is completed and therefore it deserves to be held that considering the method of accounting employed and also the nature of the case the profit of the scheme is to be determined only on completion of the project. 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeals)-IV, Baroda has erred in law and in facts while holding that the appellant is engaged in the business of construction has farther erred in estimating the net profit @ 10% of the total receipts determined at ₹ 1,05,09,355/-. The addition of ₹ 10.50.935/- deserves to be deleted. 5. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, delete or substitute to any of the grounds of appeal herein above contained. The Ld. CIT(A) may please be directed to adjudicate and decide the above grounds. 4. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds of appeal herein above contained. 21. The issue raised by the assessee in first and second ground of appeal is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in holding that he had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue afresh in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission. Since there was no application made by the appellant to the Settlement Commission, no valid and lawful jurisdiction could be exercised by him. The action of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding so is in defiance of the direction of the Hon'ble ITAT and that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeals afresh. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IlI, Baroda has further erred in law and in facts in holding that the grounds of appeal as decided by his predecessor in Appeal No. CAB/IV-95/98-99 survive and that he was not required to adjudicate the appeals afresh for want of lawful jurisdiction. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Baroda has erred in law and in facts in not deciding the following grounds of appeal as directed by the Hon'ble Tribunal: 1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) IV, Baroda has erred in law and in facts in upholding the action of the ACIT, Central 2, Baroda in disregarding the existence of various legally enforceable agreement with Madhav Organisers Pvt. Ltd., the project consultant and booking agent while misinterpreting the modus operandi of the schemed of the Avishkar Project and therefore it deserves to be held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding given in ITA no. 1916/AHD/2011 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 1992-93. The appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 1995-96 has been decided by us vide paragraph No.4 of this order against the assessee. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 28. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 3 and its sub grounds numbers 1 to 5 is that the learned CIT (A) erred in not appreciating the status of the assessee like a mutual benefit society and estimating the net profit of ₹ 22,86,730/- being 10% of the total receipts. 29. At the outset we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the year under consideration is identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1916/AHD/2011 for the assessment year 1995-96. Therefore, the finding given in ITA no. 1916/AHD/2011 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 1992-93. The appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 1995-96 has been decided by us vide paragraph No. 14 of this order by allowing the appeal of the assessee in its favour in part. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee is part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 37,55,020/- on account of unexplained peak cash loan. 34. The AO during the assessment proceedings based on the seized documents found that the assessee has incurred/paid the interest expenses of ₹ 9,01,205/- on the money borrowed in cash. These transactions were not recorded in the regular books of accounts. Thus, the AO worked out the amount of cash loan taken by the assessee by taking the base rate of interest i.e. 24% and computed the loan of ₹ 37,55,020/-. Thus, the AO treated the same as unexplained income and added the same to the total income of the assessee on the substantive basis and further made the addition of the same in the hands of MOPL on protective basis. 35. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A). 36. The Ld. CIT-A has deleted the addition made by the AO by observing that the amount of loan taken in cash was not recorded in the regular books of accounts. Therefore, such amount of loan is outside the purview of the provisions of section 68 of the Act. Furthermore, the contents of the seized documents are presumed to be true under the provisions of section 132(4A) of the Act. Therefore, the amount of loan agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e books of account. 41.1 The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has incurred huge investment in the construction of the project namely Avishkar . Accordingly, the AO in order to determine the actual value of the project of the assessee referred the matter to the DVO for the purpose of the valuation. The DVO determined the value of the project at certain amount which was not matching with the valuation declared by the assessee in the books of accounts. As per the AO, the project of the assessee was undervalued by ₹ 80,62,470/- and therefore the AO treated the same as expenditure incurred out of the unexplained sources. The AO therefore added the sum of ₹ 80,62,470/- to the total income of the assessee on substantive basis and the same was added in the hands of MOPL on protective basis. 42. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A). The assessee before the learned CIT (A) submitted that the valuation has been made by the DVO after considering the rates as fixed by the CPWD which cannot be adopted to the present facts of the case. It is for the reason that the valuation has been made by the DVO based on the estimates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 187/Ahd/1999 and 749/Ahd/1999 for the relevant year in deciding the appeal afresh do not entail jurisdiction to him. According to the Ld. CIT(A)-III, Baroda, the jurisdiction could be assumed only if the appellant's application was pending before the Settlement Commission. Since there was no application made by the appellant to the Settlement Commission, no valid and lawful jurisdiction could be exercised by him. The action of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding so is in defiance of the direction of the Hon'ble ITAT and that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeals afresh. 2 The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-lll, Baroda has further erred in law and in facts in holding that the grounds of appeal as decided by his predecessor in Appeal No. CAB/IV- 72/98-99 survive and that he was not required to adjudicate the appeals afresh for want of lawful jurisdiction. 3 The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-lll, Baroda has erred in law and in facts in not deciding the following grounds of appeal as directed by the Hon'ble Tribunal: 1. The Ld C/T (Appeals) IV, Baroda has erred in taw and in facts in upholding the action of (he ACIT, Central 2, Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the ACIT, Central Circle 2, Baroda in making an addition of ₹ 82,060/-. The addition being contrary to facts and law deserves to be deleted. 7 Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, delete or substitute to any of the grounds of appeal hereinabove contained. The Ld. CIT(A) may please be directed to adjudicate and decide the above grounds. 4. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds of appeal herein above contained. 48. The issue raised by the assessee in the first and second ground of appeal is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in holding that he had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue afresh in line with the directions of Hon ble ITAT given in ITA No. 187/AHD/1999 and 749/AHD/1999 on the reasoning that the appellant had not filed any application before the Settlement Commission. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal decided by his predecessor shall prevail. 49. At the outset we note that, the issue raised by the assessee has already been adjudicated along with the appeal filed by M/s Kotel Properties Private Limited in ITA No. 1916/AHD/2011 for the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee to explain the source of the same. However, we find that the assessee failed to offer the source of the same, therefore the addition was made by the AO which was subsequently confirmed by the learned CIT (A). At the time of hearing the learned AR has not brought anything on record about the source of cash. Accordingly we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the authorities below. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 58.1 In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Coming to ITA No. 1919/AHD/2011 and 1918/AHD/2011 and 1917/AHD/2011, appeals by assessee for the AY 1994-95, 1993-94 and 1992-93 59. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the assessee are identical to the issues raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1920/AHD/2011 which we have decided in favour of the assessee vide paragraph Nos. 48 to 51 of this order. Therefore, the finding given in ITA No. 1920/AHD/2011 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 1994-95. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed. 59.1 In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are party allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the detailed discussion, please refer the relevant paragraph number 39-40 of that order. Thus, the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 65. The next issue raised by the Revenue in ground No. 1 and its sub grounds number (iii) is that the Ld. CIT-A erred deleting the addition of ₹ 41,08,402/- holding that addition made on substantive basis in the hands of KPPL. 66. At the outset we note that, the issue raised by the Revenue has already been adjudicated along with the appeal of M/s Kotel Properties Private Limited bearing ITA No. 1916/AHD/2011 for the assessment year 1995-96 wherein the ground of appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. For the detailed discussion, please refer the relevant paragraph number 14 of that order. Thus, the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 67. The next issue raised by the Revenue in ground No. 1 and its sub grounds number (iv) is that the Ld. CIT-A erred deleting the addition of ₹ 37,48,700/- on account of unexplained payments/investment. 68. At the outset we note that, the issue raised by the Revenue has already been adjudicated along with the appeal of M/s Kotel Properties Private Limited be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. For the detailed discussion, please refer the relevant paragraph number 14 of this order. Thus, the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 75. The next issue raised by the Revenue in ground No. 1 and its sub grounds number (ii) is that the Ld. CIT-A erred deleting the addition of ₹ 56,48,087/- on account of net profit in unaccounted on money receipts. 76. At the outset we note that, the issue raised by the Revenue has already been adjudicated along with the appeal of M/s Kotel Properties Private Limited bearing ITA No. 1916/AHD/2011 for the assessment year 1995-96 wherein the ground of appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. For the detailed discussion, please refer the relevant paragraph number 14 of this order. Thus, the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 77. The next issue raised by the Revenue in ground No. 1 and its sub grounds number (iii) is that the Ld. CIT-A erred deleting the addition of ₹ 42,12,425/- on account of unexplained payment. 78. At the outset we note that, the issue raised by the Revenue has already been adjudicated along with the appeal of M/s Kotel Properties Private Limited bearing ITA No. 1916/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
