9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee was issued a notice under section 153A calling the assessee to file the return of income. The assessee declared the same income as in the original return of income in response to the above notice. The assessing officer made an addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act (in short, 'the Act') on account of unexplained expenditure and unaccounted receipts for the years under consideration as given below:- Sl.No Assessment Year Unexplained Expenditure u/s. 69C - In Rs.Lakhs 1 2013-14 10.75 2 2014-15 0.67 3 2015-16 3.15 4 2016-17 34.20 5 2017-18 0.50 4. For AY 2014-15, the assessing officer also added an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs as unaccounted receipt. For AY 2011-12 the assessment u/s. 143(3) was completed where the assessing officer made an addition towards disallowance of excess claim of depreciation and disallowance of additional claim of ESOP expenses. These disallowances have also been included while completing the assessment u/s. 143 (3) r.w.s. 153A for all the years under consideration. 5. Aggrieved the assessee filed an appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT deleted the addition made under section 69C and also the disallowance/additions made dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cash expenses pertained to the assessee itself. The AO was not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee, therefore, the AO made additions as per the table given in the earlier part of this order in respect of unexplained expenditure. 9. During the appellate proceedings the assessee submitted that- A search at the premises of Indiabulls group was conducted on 13.07.2016 wherein apart from other books off accounts, documents, records etc. that were seized, a Cash Transaction Record (CTR) in the form of a loosely maintained Cash Book in XL format as maintained by Shri Ashok Sharma for the period January, 2009 to the date of search format was seized. This CTR was the summation of similar records maintained by Shri Om Singh in Delhi and Shri Ashish Mehta in Mumbai. 1. It is humbly brought to your kind attention that the (CTR) has not been systematically maintained as regular books of accounts for each legal entity but is consolidated cash record of all entities belonging to the Indiabulls group. It will be appreciated that there is no legal entity by the name of Indiabulls group and it is just that employees who were handling those transactions have identified the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd it seems that the AO acted conservatively to err on the side of the Revenue and made the addition. However, now the order u/s. 245D(4) being passed, the Assessee submits that there remains no rationale to sustain the addition in the hands of the Assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings in the case of the Assessee, it was informed by the Assessing Officer that Shri Ashish Mehta, in his statement recorded under section 132(4), stated that the seized material contained details of cash transactions of Indiabulls group which were not recorded in regular books of account. It is understood that CTR is a master data file which contains details of unaccounted cash transactions of Indiabulls group of companies. During the assessment proceedings in case of the Assessee, the entries having the name of Assessee have been tabulated and an adverse inference has been drawn by the Learned Assessing Officer (A.O.) despite due explanation having been provided during the said proceedings. The Assessee has been given to understand that the purpose of recording data was for reporting to management about the source and application of unaccounted cash. However, unlike regular account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in para 5.3.1 to 5.3.7 of the order u/s 250 of the Act dated 20/10/2021 for A.Y. 2011-12 in appeal no. CIT(A) 54/ Mumbai/ 10047/2018-19, in which the appeal on the issue has been allowed. Thus, following the appellate order u/s 250 in the case of M/s Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. for A.Y. 2011-12, addition of unexplained expenditure of Rs. 47,56,000/- u/s 69C made by the AO is deleted. Accordingly, ground nos. 1 of the appeal is allowed." 11. Before us Ld. AR submitted that the addition made by the assessing officer under section 69C is already offered as income before the settlement commission in the hands of 16 entities in the India Bulls group. The Ld. AR further submitted that when the impugned amount is already taxed in the hands of the recipient the same cannot once again be added as income in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the statement filed before the settlement commission which the assessing Officer has extracted in the order of assessment and therefore submitted that there is no dispute that the impugned addition is part of the application made before the settlement commission. Accordingly the ld AR prayed that the addition be delet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r non-permissible in law. The Ld. AR was candid enough to admit the existence of such outgoings and requested that profit has to be estimated at reasonable rates. Accordingly, the applicants in order to buy peace, give quietus to the dispute and in the spirit of settlement, have come forward to offer an income of 35% of cash receipt / cash generated as against the offer made in the Settlement Applications @ 10%. Thus, the profit rate of 35% is accepted by the applicants on On-Money working of Rs. 325 Cr and Bogus billing of 1244.94 Cr (Rs. 1244, 34 Cr+ 59.86 Lacs) calculating at Rs. 531,67, 75,000 / -. This is against the working of profit of Rs. 151,91,00,000/- in the applications. Considering the peak amount of loan of Rs. 236. 05 crores, which is also generated out of same receipt, the total income out of cash so generated / receipts of Rs. 1519 crs. comes to Rs. 830,90 crs., considering the offer in original petition of Rs. 494.53 crores and additional offer made of Rs.405 crores (excluding the on-money on sale of plot of land of Rs. 50.27 crores and TP adjustment of Rs. 18.36 crores - totaling to Rs. 68.63 crores). Thus, the net profit percentage comes to almost 55% of cash so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assumed that even the expenses pertain to the assessee itself. This further point out the inconsistency in the submission of the assessee that the entries made in the cash transaction record are merely indicative in nature and do not relate to the assessee." 15. The assessee's contention is that the impugned additions are made by the assessing officer based on the CTR which he has extracted from the application made before the settlement commission along with the nature of expenditure and the assessment year and therefore no addition can be made since the issue is settled. In this regard we notice that the assessee submitted only the statement which is part of the application before the settlement commission by adding the narration mentioning the nature of expense and the year. The assessing officer on the other hand has made the addition basis the application before the settlement commission, but has not given any contrary finding with regard to why the source as explained is not satisfactory. It is also noticed that the assessing officer did not call for any further details from assessee to provide any additional details to substantiate the claim. Further we notice that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
