9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion deserves to be deleted as same has been added back in the case of Friends Telecom Pvt. Ltd., Modular International Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Gracious Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and double addition is not permissible in law. As established legal position that there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by assessee. Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20 of Appeal No. CIT(A)/10246/2019-20 dated 29.06.2022), Modular International Pvt. Ltd. (paragraph no 21 Appeal No. CIT(A)/10246/2019-20 dated 26.07.2022) and Gracious Overseas Pvt. (paragraph no 44 Appeal No. CIT(A)/2019-20 dated 30.06.2022) that these companies have no business apart from giving entries." 2. Facts of this case may be summarized as that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was carried out in Apple Group and Associates on 07.12.2018. A search warrant of authorization, u/s 132 of the Act was issued in the name of Sh. Aashish Garg for the residence F-22, Model Town-II, New Delhi-110009 on 07.12.2-18. Search in this case was initiated on -7.12.2018. Thereafter, jurisdiction of this case was transferred to this office by centralization order vide F. No Pr. CIT(C)/ KNP/Decentralization /2019-20/ dated 13.02.2020 from the erstwhile Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur. Assessee had furnished his original return of income u/s 139 of the Act on 04.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 6,61,760/-. The same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 10.01.2018. Since search was initiated in this cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. 23,00,000/- 9. Aston Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. 1,14,000/- 10. Antonius Tradex Pvt. Ltd. 1,22,000/- Total 119,28,87,000/- 6. In this regard, it is submitted that, additions in respect of amounts pertaining to following companies have been deleted by CIT(A) because the additions have already been made in the hands of those companies:- S. No. Name of Companies Amount 1 Gracious Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 52,14,06,000/- 2 Modular Internationals Pvt. Ltd. 79,97,000/- 3 Friends Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 48,22,50,000/- Total 101,16,53,000/- 7. And the Ld. CIT(A) has held that additions cannot be made in the case of assessee as it will amount to double additions. As a matter of fact, the Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned that additions in respect of above 3 (three) companies made in their own cases have also been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 8. In the support of above submissions, the Ld. AR referred relevant para nos. 16,17,18 and 19 of the impugned order. "16. The addition of Rs. 119,28,87,000/- made in the hands of the appellant, consist of deposits of Rs. 48,22,50,000/- in the case of Friends Telecom Pvt. Ltd. The addition made by the Assessing Officer in the hands of Friends ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; Copy of assessment order dated 28.12.2019 m/s 143(3) in Case of Gracious Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (PB page 25-30) 11. Revenue also raised the issue in the ground no. 1 and assails the deletion. Remaining 3 (three) companies, the Ld. AR submitted that: Sl. No. Name Amount Remarks 1 Propitious Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. PB page 83 42,00,000/- Case already reopend u/s 148 of the Act. 2. Aston Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. PB 3-75 1,14,000/- Assessment made u/s 143(3) and cash deposit in bank accepted and no addition made 3. Antonius Tradex Pvt. Ltd. PB 76-81 1,22,000 Assessment made u/s 147 and cash deposit in bank accepted and no addition made 12. The Ld. AR further submitted that in conclusion, out of total additions of Rs. 119,28,87,000/- made by the Ld. AO in the hands of the assessee Sh. Ashish Garg, the status is as under: Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1. Additions already made in the hand of respective companies 118,84,51,000/- 2. Assessment reopened u/s 147 for cash deposit 42,00,000/- 3. Assessment made u/s 143(3) / 147 and no addition made in the respect of cash deposit 2,36,000/- Total 119,28,87,000/- 13. In the course of hearing, the Ld. AR prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee's as not satisfactory is required to be based on proper appreciation of material and other attending circumstances available on record. The opinion of the Assessing Officer is required to be formed objectively with reference to the material available on record. Application of mind is the sine qua non for forming the opinion. 9. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Smt. Shanta Devi v. CIT 1987 (10) TMI 26 held as under: - Perusal of section 68 of the Income-tax Act would show that in relation to the expression" books", the emphasis is on the word " assessee". In other words, such books have to be the books of the assessee himself and not of any other assessee, In the present case, admittedly, the assessee maintained no books of account. The cash credit entry of which the sum in question forms part, was found in the books the account of the partnership firm which in its own right is an assesses. In the above view of the matter, the books of account of the partnership firm herein cannot be considered as those of the individual assessee herein and, therefore, section 68 of the Income tax Act would not be attracted in the present ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 68 of the Act, there is no ambiguity regarding who should be liable to pay tax. Therefore, in our considered opinion the concept of protective assessment cannot be applied in the given facts and circumstances. In view of the above, it is submitted that entire addition made by the assessing officer in the case of the assessee Sh. Ashish Garg is liable to be deleted." 14. The Ld. AR also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of Laxmipat Singhania v/s CIT UP(1969) 72 ITR that it is fundamental rule of law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice It was also submitted that no addition can be made in the hands of assessee as there is no any applicability of sec. 68 of the Act in his case because u/s 68 of the Act it must be proved that when any sum is found credited in the books of assessee maintained for any previous year but here no any sum found to be credited in the books of assessee so assessee / appellant not supposed to offer any explanation regarding nature and source thereof. It was also submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly held that an addition of Rs. 101,16,53,000/- deserves to be deleted as same has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
