9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1094X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are mentioned in the print-out obtained which is stark reality glaring at the face. It is also surprising that there has been no participation by the assessee before the AO to effectively explain the documents in its entirety. Addition made u/s 69A has been assailed that the circumstances are not applicable. Nevertheless, the same is undisclosed income, which has been rightly added. There is no requirement that the assessee has to sign these documents because they are designed to be hidden and shrouded. Mere mentioning an inapplicable proviso will hardly dislodge the addition and the logic adopted by the learned CIT(A) is palpably erroneous. Assessee has tried to create a confusion that in view of multiple entities with prefix unique relationship with Unique Realities Builders and Developers is not established. We fail to understand that how such an issue can be raised once the challenge to 153C proceedings is absent. The diametric opposite stand of the assessee is ergo jettisoned. The recalcitrant stand of the assessee before the Assessing Officer further creates doubt that perhaps the assessee is not coming with clean hands. It is worthwhile to note that even before the remand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 153C of the I.T.Act were initiated without any corroborative evidence ignoring the fact that Shri Prashant Bongirwar in answer to the Q no.19 has confirmed the receiving of amount from Unique Realities and in answer to the Q no.8 of the same statement he has confirmed the partners of Unique Realities as Shri Yele and Shri Patle, which clearly shows that the Unique reality referred to in the impounded material is the assessee firm M/s Unique Reality Builders anc Developers having the same partners namely Shri Yele and Shri Patle. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions made by A.O. as the assessee neither filed return in response to the notice under section 153C nor turned up to substantiate his claims during assessment proceedings Ju/s 153C despite repeated opportunity given, which clearly proves that the plea taken by assessee in appeals is mere afterthought. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 24,96,912/-on account of undisclosed income u/s 69A of the I.Τ. Act, without appreciating the fact that the addition of Rs. 24,96,912/- was made on the basis of incriminating documents No. B-6 found and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d disk was found and seized from the business premises of M/s Saptigiri Developers. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the contents of the said Hard Disk represents amount received in cash by M/s. Saptagiri Developers from M/s. Unique Realities, against part payment of these plots which is held to be received as on money. The assessee filed original return of income on 27/10/2018, declaring total income of Rs. 6,00,300. A notice under section 153C of Act was issued to the assessee on 18/02/2021 and served upon the assessee for filing return of income within 30 days of receipt of the notice in response to which the assessee has not filed its return of income under section 153C. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act, was issued along with detailed questionnaire on 26/03/2021, 31/02/2021 and 09/09/2021, requiring the assessee to furnish the information and document in support of their reply. However, yet the assessee chose not to file its return of income, as desired by the Assessing Officer. Further a final show cause notice under section 142(1) was sent to the assessee on 09/09/2021, requiring it to file the return of income and reply without any further delay but the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pages containing name it is seen that the exact amount written on debit voucher is given to different persons and there is no name of the appellant amongst these names. In simpliciter, the commission amount is not paid to the appellant firm but to the people whose name appears on the pages. The appellant also submitted that the AO has failed in bringing on record any corroborative evidence to substantiate the claim that the appellant has received commission amount. There has been no evidence whatsoever to corroborate the claim of the AO. The appellant also challenged the addition by stating that the AO has invoked the wrong section for making addition under Sec 69A as Sec 69A provides for unexplained money which deals with a situation where the assessee is found to be owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account. A remand report was called from the Ld. AO for explanation on the assertion made by the appellant firm. The remand report (on the said Ground No. 5 of the appeal) held that the additions are made on the sound grounds. I am satisfied by the argument of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .453/PN/2012, dated 11/02/2014. 9. Hon'ble Delhi High Court order in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Classic Motors Ltd, [2017] 88 taxmann.com 478 (Delhi). 10. Hon'ble Delhi High Court order in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sant Lal, [2020] 118 taxmann.com 432 (Delhi) 11. Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench Nanakchand Kanhiyalal V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, [2001] 73 TTJ 585 (JP.) 12. Hon'ble ITAT Amritsar Bench, Income-Tax Officer V. Balram Jakhar, [2006] 8 SOT 1 (ASR.)(URO). Also as the debit vouchers do not contain the title, signature, name of the appellant firm and neither are found from the possession of the appellant nor part of books of accounts of the appellant firm. Therefore, these vouchers are dumb documents and loose papers as far as the case of the appellant is considered. Further, no circumstantial evidence in the form of any unaccounted cash, jewellery or investments outside the books of account was found Thus, the impugned addition was made by the AO on grossly inadequate material or rather no material at all and as such, deserves to be deleted. The documents are said to be dumb only in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tta High Court in Kantilal Chandulal & Co. v. CIT [1982] 136 ITR 889. 9. The Madras High Court in the case Mohammad [1997] 228 ITR 113/92 Taxman 169. of CIT v. K.T.M.S. 10. The Calcutta High Court in Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT [2004] 265 ITR 25/[2003] 130 Taxman 553. 11.CIT v. Ravi Kumar [2007]294 ITR 78/[2008] 168 Taxman 150 (Punj. & Har.). 12. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. GSNR Rice Industries (P.) Ltd. [2021] 128 taxmann.com 433 (Chennai - Trib.) Therefore, the fifth ground of appeal is hereby adjudicated in the favor of the appellant and the addition made of Rs. 24,96,912/ is deleted and this ground is 'allowed' hereby. 6.1.6: The sixth ground of appeal raised by the appellant is whether the Ld. AO is justified in law and fact in making an addition to the tune of Rs. 92,31,514/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act as On money. The Ld. AR submitted that the documents are found from the premise of Saptagirhi Builder and Developers during survey proceeding and any presumption under section 132(4A) /292C arises against Saptagirhi Builder and Developers. The Ld. AR further submitted a detailed reply in support of its contention. Fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2017] 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) 2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla, [1998] 1998 taxmann.com 2155 (SC). 3. The Mumbai ITAT in case of ITO v. Kranti Impex (P.). Ltd. (IT Appeal No. 1229 (Mum.) of 2013, dated 28-2-2018]. 4. The Mumbai ITAT in case of Asstt. CIT v. Layer Exports (P.) Ltd. [20171 88 taxmann.com 620]. 5. The Hon'ble Delhi High in case of Kaycee Electricals v. DCIT, 87 ITD 35 (Del.). 6. The Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Sri Radheshyam Poddar [1992] 41 ITD 449 (Cal). 7. The Delhi Tribunal in the case of Ashwani Kumar v. IΤΟ [1991] 39 ITD 183 (Delhi). The other aspect raised by the Ld. AR is that no addition can be made under Sec 69C as there exists no expenditure done by the appellant. The conditions of Sec 69C are that the assessee must have incurred the expenditure and disallowance shall be made only if the explanation is not considered satisfactory. The appellant vehemently denies any expenditure. There has been no further enquiry made by the AO. There is no evidence of such expenditure. Under such circumstances an addition cannot be made under Sec 69C in the hands of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y explain the documents in its entirety. Before the learned CIT(A), vouchers in respect of AVC Homes are submitted wherein certain vouchers clearly bear the name of the Unique Realities Builders & Developers (the assessee herein). If that be so, the Assessing Officer has correctly added the same as undisclosed income because the assessee failed to provwe that that were reflected in regular books. The addition made under section 69A has been assailed that the circumstances are not applicable. Nevertheless, the same is undisclosed income, which has been rightly added. There is no requirement that the assessee has to sign these documents because they are designed to be hidden and shrouded. Mere mentioning an inapplicable proviso will hardly dislodge the addition and the logic adopted by the learned CIT(A) is palpably erroneous. The learned Counsel for the assessee did not raise any cross-objection or any application under rule 27 of the ITAT Rules which effectively vindicates that there is no legal challenge to the adjudication. She referred to the order of the Metrocity Home, ITA no.165/Nag./2023, authored by one of us (A.M). But the facts are totally divergent because the nature of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with prefix unique relationship with Unique Realities Builders and Developers is not established. We fail to understand that how such an issue can be raised once the challenge to 153C proceedings is absent. The diametric opposite stand of the assessee is ergo jettisoned. The recalcitrant stand of the assessee before the Assessing Officer further creates doubt that perhaps the assessee is not coming with clean hands. It is worthwhile to note that even before the remand proceedings, the assessee failed to make any submissions to improve his case. The learned Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on various case laws are misplaced and unjustifiable because these are not universal law and can be applied only in these particular facts. She had not made any efforts to rope in any evidences whatsoever to strengthen her case. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case and referring to the case laws cited before us by the learned Counsel for the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee failed to justify that additions are not sustainable based on impounded documents. More denial of the transaction by raising a cobweb of nebulous assertions without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
