9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsactions were held belongs to Bulland Leasing and Finance P. Ltd. and not to the assessee. Revenue had filed an appeal before the ITAT against the order of ld.CIT(A) on the deletion of said addition in the case of Bulland Leasing & Finance for AY 2007-08 and the ITAT [2019 (10) TMI 1604 - ITAT DELHI] has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on the ground that the amount of tax effect is less than the monetary limits fixed for filing of appeals by Revenue as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 08th Aug 2019. Decided in favour of assessee. Unexplained income - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- We find that this addition was deleted by the ld. CIT (A) as this amount of personal expenditure might have met out of his own funds and there is no evidence to suggest that the expenditure has been met out of undisclosed income. Thus no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition. Unaccounted cash - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- We find that in the remand report, the AO has confirmed that Statement of Affairs filed by the assessee has declared cash balance of Rs. 1,62,000/- as on 31.3.2011. The cash was not seized, thus implying that the AO is satisfied with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ajinder Kaur, CIT DR ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM: 1. The Revenue has filed three appeals against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as 'ld. CIT (A)') dated 07.07.2014, 24.06.2014 & 25.06.2014 for Assessment Years 2007-08, 2011-12 & 2011-12 respectively. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. ITA NO.5214/Del/2014 (AY 2007-08) 3. Now we deal with Revenue's appeal no. 5214/Del/2014 for AY 2007-08 wherein following grounds have been raised by the Revenue :- "1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- made by AO on account of unaccounted money lending business. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,32,15,769/- made by the AO on account of unaccounted payment of money to different parties. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 81,460/- made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07.07. 2014. We further noted that as per the said order, the same addition was made in the hands of M/s Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. on substantive basis.Further, in the case of M/s Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2007-08, ITAT in its Order dated 22.08.2019 in ITA No.1179/Del/2015 has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on the ground that the amount of tax effect in the case is below the monetary limit fixed for filing of appeals by Revenue as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 08thAug 2019. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts on record, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition in dispute, hence, we uphold the same on this issue and accordingly, reject the ground no. 2 raised by the revenue. 8. Apropos ground no. 3, relating to addition of Rs. 1,32,15,769/- on account of unaccounted payment of money to different parties is concerned, we observed that the assessee had submitted before AO that these transactions relates to Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt Ltd, however, he proceeded to make substantive addition in the hands of assessee since the documents were found in premises of the assessee and protective in the hands of the Bulland Leas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 01st October, 2019 in ITA No.5213/Del/2014has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on the ground that the amount of tax effect is less than the monetary limits fixed for filing of appeals by Revenue as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 08th Aug 2019. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition in dispute, hence, we uphold the same on this issue and accordingly, reject the ground no. 3 raised by the revenue. 10. Apropos ground no. 4, relating to addition on account of unexplained income amounting to Rs. 81,460/- is concerned, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by observing as under:- "6.3 In the last ground of appeal, numbered 3, the third addition has been challenged. I find that appellant has substantial capital and cash in hand to explain this meagre amount of personal expenditure. There is no evidence to suggest that the expenditure has been met out of undisclosed income. The addition made cannot be sustained and is deleted." 11. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that this addition was deleted by the ld. CIT (A) vide order dated 7thJuly, 2014 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of search. This addition, based on incorrect fact, cannot be sustained and is deleted…" 14.1 Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that in the remand report, the AO has confirmed that Statement of Affairs filed by the assessee has declared cash balance of Rs. 1,62,000/- as on 31.3.2011. The cash was not seized, thus implying that the AO is satisfied with cash in hand. Hence, ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted this addition, which does not need any interference on our part, therefore, we uphold the same and accordingly, reject the ground no. 2 raised by the revenue. 15. Apropos ground no. 3, relating to addition on account of unaccounted jewellery amounting to Rs. 16,53,580/- is concerned. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by observing as under:- "...As regards jewellery found, it was submitted that these were ancestral jewellery belonging to different ladies in the family living jointly. The addition was made in the absence of member-wise details and documentary evidence. Firstly, the jewellery was not seized, indicating that the search team was satisfied about the ownership and source of jewellery found on the date of searc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed chit fund business of the appellant. This addition has been made in equal proportion in the case of the appellant as well as Shri Rajneesh Nagar, another director of Bulland group. The matter was decided in the case of Shri Nagar in Appeal No.l69/13-14 vide order dated 07.02.2014 as under: "4.1 Facts are that a search and seizure was conducted on the premises of the appellant, as part of search and seizure on the Bulland group of cases. The appellant is director in the companies of this group. During the course of search, assets and documents were found I seized. Among the seized documents, three documents I registers (Annex A-3 PP 1-224; A-4 PP 1- 318; A-5 PP 1-188) were found at A-2, 2nd Floor, Devli Road, Khanpur, New Delhi by search party P-l and seized, The business premises of M/s Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. These documents indicated a chit fund business, being run to privately finance the business or other financial needs of the members of the fund. Based on the entries recorded therein, the directors of M/s Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Bulland Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. admitted undisclosed income of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- Rs. 50,00,000/- each in the hands of appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereon, is deleted. The third and fourth grounds of appeal are decided in these terms." As decided above, I hold that the undisclosed income of the appellant from undisclosed chit-fund business is Rs. 22,87,790/- (i.e. @ 50% of Rs. 45,75,580/-). The addition of Rs. 4,03,72,823/-, based on incorrect entries and incorrect calculation thereon, is deleted. The amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- admitted during search was shown as business income, from commission / brokerage in chit-fund business, in the computation filed by the appellant. The statement of affairs of the appellant as on 31.03.2011 includes the said amount of Rs:50,00,0001- and the tax on the admitted income has also been paid by the appellant." 19. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that this issue is covered by the decision of the ITAT in the case of Rajneesh Nagar in AY 2011-12. We observed that Mr. Nagar is the Co- Director in Bulland Group and the addition was deleted vide ITAT order dated 20.01.2017 in ITA No.2667/Del/2014. In view of the aforesaid decision of the coordinate bench, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition in dispute, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition by observing as under:- "The last addition of Rs. 2,11,06,950/- relates to alleged unaccounted transactions based on seized documents at pages 31, 35, 36-41 & 43-51 of Annexure A1. Of these transactions Rs. 49,74,165/- is said to relate to M/s Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 1,80,000/- relates to M/s Bulland Automobiles and the remaining Rs. 1,-35,42,785/- (this is the actual amount as Rs. 24,10,000/- has been added twice) relates to M/s Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. The addition of Rs. 1,35,42,785/- made on a protective basis in the hands of M/s Bulland Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. and has been decided in favour of the appellant in that casevide Appeal No. 166/13-14 vide order of even date. For the reasons recorded in Para-7.9 of the said order, this addition is deleted. The amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- is found to be cash balance of M/s Bulland Automobiles as on 23.01.2011 copy of the day cash book filed reveals the said balance. This addition also cannot be sustained and is deleted. The addition of Rs. 49,74,165/-, made on the basis of page-36, is said to be liabilities of M/s Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the period 30.09 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer on account of unaccounted money transaction." 26. Ground No.1 is general in nature, hence does not require any adjudication. 27. At the outset, with regard to grounds no.2 & 3, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that since both the transactions are pertained to AY 2007-08, the additions are not sustainable in AY 2011-12 and, therefore, deleted by the ld. CIT(A) in paras 4.2 & 4.3 and 5.2 & 5.3 of his order. For the sake of clarity, paras 4.2 & 4.3 and 5.2 & 5.3 of ld. CIT (A)'s order is reproduced below :- "GROUND NO.2 4.2 I have considered the assessment order, submissions made and the records of the case. In the case of Sh. Ramkesh Basist, director, I have held in Appeal No.182/13-14 vide order dated 24.06.2014 as under: "7.4 Para-8 of the AO; Ground No.5: The next addition of Rs. l,43,80,042/- alleged to be unaccounted payments to different parties as per seized document page-29 & 30 of Annexure A1. The addition was made as details of supporting evidence I books of accounts were not produced. The appellant claims that these transactions relate to M/s Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. and are the same entries as recorded on page 35 of Annexure AI. I have g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The addition of Rs. 49,74,165/-, made on the basis of page-36, is said to be liabilities of M/s Bulland Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the period 30.09.2006 to 23.10.2006. This has been found recorded in the list of sundry creditors filed for the said periods. In any case, the transaction does not relate to this A Y and no addition based on these entries can be sustained herein. These additions are, therefore, deleted." 5.3 In view of the above, the matters are to be examined in the Appeal for AY 2007-08. Addition made in this A Y is deleted and this ground of appeal is allowed." 28. Ld. AR further submitted that the Revenue has filed appeal before the ITAT for AY 2007-08 which was dismissed due to low tax effect by the ITAT vide order dated 01.10.2019 in ITA No.5213/Del/2014. Accordingly, ld. AR prayed that the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue may be rejected and the appeal filed by the Revenue be dismissed. 29. Ld. DR for the Revenue did not controvert the proposition made by the ld. AR, however he relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 30. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. After going through the order of ld. CIT (A), we ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
