TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t out of the accumulated savings and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha has paid amount out of the disclosed source of income earned from outside India. Therefore the allegation of the revenue authorities that the investment of ₹ 46 lakh in the properties in the name of Shri G.P. Sinha and Shri Shailendra Kumar Sinha is unaccounted investment of the assessee seems baseless as all the evidences are on record which clearly prove that the owners of the properties have paid consideration for acquiring deed and there is no evidence to show that the alleged investment in the properties has been made by the assessee. Therefore addition for unaccounted investment u/s 69 of the Act stands deleted. As far as the property of Smt. Vinita Parashar is concerned it is true that the original sale deed was seized from the residence of the appellant but in response to the summon issued to Smt. Vinita Parashar, her father namely Shri Shriram Choudhary appeared and stated that he is an employee of State Government and has sold one plot admeasuring 2400 sq.ft at Kolar road and receipt from sale of the plot was invested in the property in the name of daughter. The document related to this purchase was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (-) ₹ 1,73,352/-). Therefore there remains no basis for the addition of ₹ 1,73,352/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e). Unaccounted credits in the bank - Held that:- The bank statement of Shri R.P. Sinha is filed. Ld. CIT(A) did not delete the addition for the alleged amount and confirmed it. It is also noticed that Shri R.P. Sinha was available during the course of search as well as during the course of assessment. In these given facts the claim of the assessee that ₹ 3,00,000/- has been received from Shri R.P. Sinha could be verified by the Ld.A.O in order to satisfy about the source of the credit entry in the bank account which is claimed to have been received from the bank account of Shri R.P. Sinha for necessary verification with the assistance of the assessee, after providing him necessary opportunity of being heard. Ground No. 5 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. - IT(SS) No.150 to 155/Ind/2017 & ITA No.428/Ind/2017, IT(SS) No.156 to 161/Ind/2017 ITA No.429/Ind/2017, IT(SS) No.162 to 166/Ind/2017 & ITA No.430/Ind/2017, IT(SS) No.167 to 170/Ind/2017 & ITA No.427/Ind/2017 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2019 - Kul Bharat, Judicial Member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase, liable to be annulled. 2. That the additions are illegal and bad in law as they are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 25,99,548/- on account of alleged unaccounted credits in bank account u/s 69 of the Act. 4. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on account of unaccounted cash deposit of ₹ 5,82,000/-. 5. That the ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 9,01,312/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. That the ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on account of alleged undisclosed perquisites as undisclosed receipts of ₹ 3,61,666/- u/s 17(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. 7. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Assessment Year 2009-10 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case :- 1. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law as they are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on account of unaccounted cash deposit of ₹ 20,000/-.. 4. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 3,00,000/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Assessment Year 2012-13 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case :- 1. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2. That the additions are illegal and bad in law as they are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- on account of alleged unaccounted credits in bank account u/s 69 of the Act. 4. That th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment for the seven years after making various additions which were challenged before Ld. CIT(A) and assessee got part relief. Following chart shows the details of return of income, various additions made by Ld.A.O, Relief given by Ld.CIT(A) and additions challenging before the Tribunal:- A. Y Returned income Addition by Ld.A.O Relief by CIT(A) Income after CIT(A) order 2007-08 4,48,025 57,99,832 9,10,933 38,88,899 2008-09 9,90,120 45,18,651 74,125 44,44,526 2009-10 21,93,050 51,70,682 74,300 37,73,487 2010-11 21,11,270 6,99,200 - 6,99,200 2011-12 18,47,310 3,20,000 - 3,20,000 2012-13 42,01,330 1,01,10,769 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f notice u/s 143(2) Status on date of search 2007-08 Verification at (PAPER BOOK 46) 25.07.07 (PB44) 30.09.2008 Return processed u/s 143(1). No notice u/s 143(2) 2008-09 (PAPER BOOK-59) Date not clear 30.09.2010 (Max) Return processed u/s 143(1). No notice u/s 143(2) 2009-10 30.03.2010 (PAPER BOOK 70) 30.09.2010 Return processed u/s 143(1). No notice u/s 143(2) 2010-11 18.01.2011 (PAPER BOOK 83) 30.09.2011 Return processed u/s 143(1). No notice u/s 143(2) 2011-12 05.3.2012 (PAPER BOOK 93) 30.09.2012 Return processed u/s 143(1). No notice u/s 143(2) 10. The above chart shows that for Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2011-12 the due date of issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act for the respective assessment years stood expired as on the date of search i.e. 30.11.2012 and therefore the case for Assessment Years 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed by the AOs as a fresh exercise. iii. The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place. The AO has the power to assess and reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax . iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by the assessee, the other grounds raised on merits of the case for various additions made for Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2011-12 becomes infructuous and thus liable to be dismissed as infructuous. 14. Now we take up ITA (SS) 150/Ind/2007 in the case of Shri Sanjay Kumar Sinha for Assessment Year 2012-13. Apropos Ground No.3 in which the assessee has challenged the finding of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- on account of alleged unaccounted credits in bank accounts u/s 69 of the Act. Facts in brief are that in compliance to the questionnaire u/s 142(1) dated 14.7.2014 assessee was asked to furnish the narration of the debit and credit entries reflected in the bank account. As on 1.6.2011 there was a credit from M/s. Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd, assessee was unable to explain the source and accordingly the assessment made by Ld.A.O was confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). 15. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 16. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. From going through the written submissions filed by the assessee as well as ledger account in the name of the assessee being Director in the books of M/s. Soumya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 32,50,769/- is not taxable as deemed dividend but it is a part of amount received against the advance salary and share of joint venture project. Thus Ground No.4 for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed for statistical purposes. 20. Now we take up Ground No.5 relating to addition of ₹ 63,50,000/- on account of unaccounted investment u/s 69 of the Act. Brief facts are that during the course of search original deeds in the name of persons other than the assessee namely Smt. Vinita Parashar (value of property ₹ 17,50,000/-) Shri G.P. Sinha and Shri Shailendra Kumar Sinha (property value at ₹ 46 lakhs) were found. As the original sale deeds were found in the possession of the appellant just for this reason the investment in the immoveable properties were treated as unaccounted investment u/s 69 of the Act even when the notice issued u/s 133 of the Act to all the purchasers of the property were duly received and replied accepting the ownership of the properties. Assessee failed to get any relief from Ld. CIT(A). 21. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 22. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Assessee has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between M/S Fortune Soumya Housing office at Fortune House, plot No. 157, Zone-I, MP Nagar Bhopal thought its partners Shri Ajay Mohgaonkar S/o Shri S.W. Mohgaonkar and Shri Sameer Goupta S/o Shri S.C. Gupta R/o 31-A, B.D.A. colony, Koh-e-fiza, Bhopal (seller) and the purchaser s are Shri Shailendra Kr. Sinha S/o Shri Ram Dayal Sinha and Smt. Neelam Shina W/o Shri Shailendra Sinha R/o Vill. post Suitha Distt. Ptana State Bihar of free Hold residential plot No. C-58 area 1156 Sq.ft. Situated at Tulip Greens, Gram Mahabadia, Tehsil Hurzu, Distt, Bhopal for total of ₹ 1082600/- dated 7.1.2012. Shri Shailendra Kr. Sinha S/oShri Ram Dayal Shina and Smt. Neelam Sinha W/o vill. post suitha dost. Patna state Bihar. 44. FS-5 as per LPS- 1/2, page no. 42 to 62 56. (PB 262-269) Sale Deep between M/S Fortune Soumya Housing office at Fortune House, plot No. 157, Zone-I, MP Nagar Bhopal thought its partners Shri Ajay Mohgaonkar S/o Shri S.W. Mohgaonkar and Shri Sameer Goupta S/o Shri S.C. Gupta R/o 31-A, B.D.A. colony, Koh-e-fiza, Bhopal (seller) and the purchaser s are Shri Shailendra Kr. Sinha S/o Shri Ram Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. Therefore addition for unaccounted investment of ₹ 46,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act stands deleted. 25. As far as the property of Smt. Vinita Parashar is concerned it is true that the original sale deed was seized from the residence of the appellant but in response to the summon issued to Smt. Vinita Parashar, her father namely Shri Shriram Choudhary appeared and stated that he is an employee of State Government and has sold one plot admeasuring 2400 sq.ft at Kolar road and receipt from sale of the plot was invested in the property in the name of daughter. The document related to this purchase was duly executed but was pending for registration and the document seized was a normal business document found at the Directors residence. No other connection was established between the assessee and Smt. Vinita Parashar. Shri Shriram Choudhary has categorically accepted that the investment has been made by him in the name of his daughter from his own fund received from sale of plot at Kolar Road. Therefore when all the details of the purchaser were with the Ld.A.O and these persons appeared before the Ld.A.O there was no estoppels on his part to make necessary verific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his amount has also been made in the hands of Shri Rajeev Sharma and treated it to be as unaccounted transaction of Shri Sanjay Sinha. There is no mention of any date and particular of transaction on this seized document. Name of the assessee is not appearing but just a word SS is appearing. It is a well settled in law that the loose papers and documents cannot possibly be construed as books of account regularly kept in the course of business. Such evidence would, therefore, be outside the purview of Section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1972. Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V.C. Shukla (1988) 8 SSC 410 and Chuharmal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1988) 172 250 38 Taxmann 190 (SC) has held that revenue cannot be justified in resting its case on the loose papers, diary and documents found from third party if such documents contained narrations of transactions with the assessee . The above view of Hon ble Apex Court was followed in the case of Shree Parshwanath Construction 24 ITJ 409 (Trib. Indore) and in the case of Addl. CIT V/s Lata Mangeshkar 97 ITR 696 (Bom.). 31. It was also settled law in the case of Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) Vs. ACI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the close of October, 2007 there was sufficient cash balance in the hands of the assessee which could explain the source of cash deposits. The Ld. Counsel therefore requested to set aside the issue to the file of the Ld.A.O for necessary verification. Ld. Departmental Representative did not opposed to this request. 36. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The alleged addition of ₹ 5,30,000/- challenged by the assessee in Ground No.4 for Assessment Year 2013-14 for not explaining the addition of the cash deposit in the bank account held with Axis Bank. The cash flow statement have been filed by the assessee. As on 1.4.2012 the opening cash in hand shown as ₹ 43,84,311/-. Primarily this figure supports the contention of the assessee. However as these details were not placed before the lower authorities, we deem it appropriate to set aside the issue for unaccounted cash deposits of ₹ 5,30,000/- to the file of Ld.A.O for necessary verification after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee in order to file the cash flow statement. In the result Ground No.4 raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on account of unaccounted cash deposit of ₹ 69,000/- (wrongly written by CIT(A) as ₹ 32,000/-) out of total cash deposit of ₹ 1,01,000/- That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on account of unaccounted cash deposit of ₹ 5,82,000/-. 4. That the ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 65,000/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on account of alleged undisclosed perquisites as undisclosed receipts of ₹ 3,61,666/- u/s 17(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. 6. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in making addition of ₹ 2,90,000/- on account of alleged unaccounted credits in bank account u/s 69 of the Act. 7. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Assessment Year 2009-10 On the facts and in the circumstances of the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the grounds of appeal. Assessment Year 2011-12 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case :- 1. The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2. That the additions are illegal and bad in law as they are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on account of unaccounted cash deposit of ₹ 20,000/-.. 4. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 11,00,000/- on account of alleged unaccounted credits in bank account u/s 69 of the act. 5. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Assessment Year 2012-13 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case :- 1. Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erving that in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search and as the date of issuance of notices u/s 143(2) of the Act stood expired, no addition was called for in the assessment completed u/s 153A of the Act in view of the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT (Central)-III V/s Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Delhi). 43. In the instant case also the facts remains same. Return of income for Assessment Ye1r 2007-08 to 2011-12 stands filed as per the provisions of Section 139 of the Act. Date of search was 30.11.12. The last date for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act for Assessment Year 2011-12 was 30.9.2012, thus it remains undisputed that before the date of search due date for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act stood expired for Assessment Year 2007-08 to Assessment Year 2011-12. Further from perusal of the assessment order for Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2011-12, we find that the additions have been made for cash deposit, deemed dividend, undisclosed perquisites, unaccounted credit in bank, booking of bogus loss, unaccounted investment u/s 69 of the Act. And unaccounted Capital Gains. No live link have been estab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18,50,000/-. Stamp duty valuation was ₹ 19,15,100/-. Difference of ₹ 1,05,100/- was added to the income of the assessee as undisclosed perquisite. 49. We have given thoughtful consideration to this issue and observe that while adjudicating the ground raised in the case of M/s Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd vide ITA (SS)No. 124 to 129/Ind/2017, ITA(SS) No.141 to 146/Ind/2017, ITA (SS) No.317/Ind/2017 ITA(SS) No.342/Ind/2017 wherein the additions were made in the hands of M/s. Soumya Homes Pvt.Ltd for difference between the stamp duty valuation and purchase consideration. While deciding the issue in that case we have held that the transaction have been carried out at fair market value as lower rates for the properties were charged to the other customers in comparison to those charged to the Director or the relatives and thus the purchase consideration paid by the plot owners was accepted and the addition was deleted. We also held that the provisions of Section 50C of the Act are not applicable on the sale of stock in trade for the transactions entered during the year under appeal. In view of our above decision, we are inclined to hold that no addition of ₹ 1,05,100/- wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of search as well as during the course of assessment. In these given facts the claim of the assessee that ₹ 3,00,000/- has been received from Shri R.P. Sinha could be verified by the Ld.A.O in order to satisfy about the source of the credit entry in the bank account which is claimed to have been received from the bank account of Shri R.P. Sinha for necessary verification with the assistance of the assessee, after providing him necessary opportunity of being heard. Ground No. 5 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 55. Ground No.6 is raised against the additions of ₹ 5,46,800/- on account of unaccounted capital gains. 56. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for not pressing this ground. We therefore confirm the addition of ₹ 5,46,800/- and dismiss ground No.6 for Assessment Year 2013-14 as not pressed. 57. The other grounds are general in nature which needs no adjudication. 58. In the result the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2011-12 are allowed and for Assessment Year 2012-13 2013-14 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 59. Now we will take up appeals No. IT(SS)162 150/Ind/2017 in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. That the ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 34,353/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Assessment Year 2011-12 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case :- 1. The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2. That the additions are illegal and bad in law as they are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on account of unaccounted cash deposit of ₹ 78,000/-.. 4. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 33,662/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the ld CIT(A) erred i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear 2013-14 challenging the addition as they were not based on incriminating material found during the course of search. We have dealt this issue while adjudicating the issue of Shri Sanjay Kumar Sinha wherein we have deleted the addition for Assessment Year 2008-09 to 2011-12 after observing that in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search and the date of issuance of notices u/s 143(2) of the Act stood expired, no addition was called for in the assessment completed u/s 153A of the Act in view of the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT (Central)-III V/s Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Delhi). 62. In the instant case also the facts remains same. Return of income for Assessment Year 2008-09 to 2011-12 stands filed as per the provisions of Section 139 of the Act. Date of search was 30.11.12. The last date for issuance of notice u/s 142 for Assessment Year 2011-12 was 30.9.2012 thus it remains undisputed that before the date of search due date for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act stood expired. Further from perusal of the assessment order for Assessment Year 2008-09 to 2011-12, we find that the additions have been made f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing financial year 2011-12 (Assessment Year 2012-13) the salary receivable during the year is ₹ 13,02,500/- which makes total amount payable to ₹ 23,62,992/-. Against this figure it is claimed that ₹ 26,45,209/- has been paid which interalia includes the alleged amount of ₹ 13,42,709/- and thus remains net debit balance of ₹ 2,82,217/-. We have gone through these details and find that the additions u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act is not justifiable in the present circumstances because payments received by the assessee M/s.Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd are part of the regular salary transactions entered into ordinary process of business. The outstanding debit of ₹ 2,81,217/- in no way could be termed as a loan because there are regular transactions of monthly salary and payments against it and the balance at the close of the month in the year gets it changed. Debit balance of ₹ 2,82,217/- could not be categorized as loan to the assessee rather it is a balance of the current account between the company i.e. M/s. Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd and the assessee, relating to the salary payable and therefore no addition was called for u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Therefore G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income tax is levied, fourth whether any taxable income arises from the transactions. In absence of all these characteristics the document becomes a dumb document. Ratio laid down in the case of CIT V/s Girish Chaudhary (2007) 163 taxman 608/((2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) that no charge could be levied on the basis of dumb document. 70. In the instant case the alleged document is not speaking of any transaction as to whether it is credit entry or purchase entry or outstanding balance. No date and name is mentioned Revenue authorities miserably failed to make any correlation between assessee and the seized document. Therefore in our view alleged document is a dumb document on the basis of this no addition could be made. Therefore Ground No.4 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 is allowed and addition of ₹ 30,51,950/- is deleted. 71. Apropos Ground No.5 for the addition of ₹ 4,67,450/- on account of cash found during the course of search and treating it as unexplained cash found, brief facts are that the cash of ₹ 8,52,400/- was found at the residential premises of Shri Rajeev Sharma and ₹ 3,00,000/- found in the locker No.21 of Canara Bank. Out of these amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2. That the additions are illegal and bad in law as they are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of alleged undisclosed receipts of ₹ 4,32,328/- from M/s. Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd. 4. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Assessment Year 2011-12 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case :- 1. The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the assessment order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2 That the additions are illegal and bad in law as they are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. 3. That the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on account of unaccounted cash dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. 75. Ground No.1 for Assessment Year 2009-10 to Assessment Year 2013-14 are general in nature which needs no adjudication. As regards for Assessment Year 2009-10 to 2013-14 are concerned, as decided by us in the case of other assessee s in the preceding para, in the similar way the common ground No.2 has been raised for Assessment Year 2009-10 to Assessment Year 2013-14 contending that in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search no addition could be made in assessment u/s 153A/153C of the Act. From the perusal of the records and submissions made by the assessee, we find that regular returns u/s 139 of the Act were filed on 30.3.2010, 4.1.2011 and 5.3.2012 for Assessment Year 2009-10 to Assessment Year 2011-12 and due date for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was 30.9.2010, 30.9.2011 and 30.9.2012 for Assessment Year 2009-10 to 2011-12 respectively. The date of search was 30.11.2012. Therefore in view of the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Delhi as held in the case of CIT (Central)-III V/s Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Delhi) all additions for Assessment Year 2009-10 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... left a closing balance of ₹ 4,25,015/- as on 31.3.2012. On the contrary the working given by the Ld.A.O contains certain irregularities as the figures taken in the working are not correct. Therefore this issue needs to set aside to the file of Ld.A.O to make a fresh working inconsonance with the correct calculation of the salary account filed by the assessee. Accordingly Ground No.4 is allowed for statistical purposes. 79. Apropos Ground No.5 for the addition for undisclosed perquisite u/s 17(2)(iii) of the Act at ₹ 2,13,600/-, we find that the similar issue was raised in the case of other members of the same group for alleged difference between the purchase consideration and the stamp duty valuation. We have decided this issue in the case of M/s Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd vide ITA (SS)No. 124 to 129/Ind/2017, ITA(SS) No.141 to 146/Ind/2017, ITA (SS) No.317/Ind/2017 ITA(SS) No.342/Ind/2017 holding that the transaction carried out by M/s. Soumya Homes Pvt Ltd were at the fair market price and there no undue benefit given by the company to its Directors/employees in selling the properties vis- -vis the rates charged with other customers. We therefore applying the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Smt. Anjana Sinha 1 IT(SS) No.156 to 160/Ind/2017 2007-08 to 2011-12 Allowed 2 IT(SS) No.161/Ind/2017 2012-13 Partly allowed for statistical purpose. 3 - 2013-14 Partly allowed for statistical purpose. Shri Rajeev Sharma 1 IT(SS) No.162 to 165/Ind/2017 2008-09 to 2011-12 Allowed 2 IT(SS) No.166/Ind/2017 2012-13 Partly allowed for statistical purpose. 3 - 2013-14 Partly allowed for statistical purpose. Smt. Manju Sharma 1 IT(SS) No.162 to 164/Ind/2017 2009-10 to 2011-12 Allowed 2 IT(SS) No.165/Ind/2017 2012-13 Partly allowed for statistical p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
