TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not considered the transaction in true perspective and simply relied upon the report of the Inv Wing, New Delhi. The facts show that the transaction of ₹ 8 crores is not that of loan simpliciter. It is a business transaction and should have been considered from that angle. The companies, namely Virgin Capital Services Pvt Ltd, VIP Leasing and Finance Pvt Ltd and Humtum Marketing Pvt Ltd have tendered money for booking flats in the projects of the assessee company. It appears that the Assessing Officer has not examined the transaction of booking flats by these companies. It also appears that after booking the flats in the projects of the assessee company, bookings were cancelled and subsequently, the money was refunded to these companies. Though the first appellate authority has deleted the addition but at the same time, he has also not gone into the details of booking of flats and subsequent cancellation. Hundreds of flats/houses were booked in the projects of the assessee company and several of them were cancelled subsequently and no adverse inference has been drawn in so far as such bookings and cancellations are concerned. Therefore, there is no reason why the booki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee for A.Ys 2007-08 to 2011-12 and cross appeals by the revenue for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. 2. The first appellate authority has disposed off the appeals of A.Ys 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2010-11 by a consolidated order and has decided the appeal for A.Y 2009-10 by a separate order. 3. Since common issues are involved in all the seven appeals and were heard together, they are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ASSESSEE S APPEALS 4. In assessee s appeals, the ld. AR argued only on two issues. Therefore, all the other issues raised in grounds of appeal go into oblivion. The first issue being on account of unaccounted cash receipts which is there in A.Ys 2007-08 to 2010-11 and in A.Y 2011-12, the addition is in respect of unexplained money on account of gold coins found during the course of search. The ld. AR did not press this ground for the smallness of the amount involved and, therefore, the same is dismissed out right. 5. The issues raised by the Revenue shall be considered separately. 6. The representatives of both the sides we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the withdrawal side of the pass book. For example, on 11.09.2007, there is a receipt from Shri S.C. Suri of ₹ 4,72,500/- which on 13.09.2007 was forwarded to Head Office through Shri B.P. Dhaka. Similarly, on 29.07.20117, there is a receipt from M/s Shalini Jaiswal/Bhagwan Jaiswal ₹ 8,41,500/- which on the same date has been forwarded to the Head Office. This pattern can be seen in all the entries reflected in the said diary [bank pass book]. Therefore, in our considered opinion, only the amount received which is shown under the column Deposits can be considered as the unaccounted receipts of the assessee. In fact, the deposits column in the bank pass book reflect the credit entries and the withdrawals column reflect the debit entries. 9. However, we find that the entry on 1.10.2007 relating to Shri S. Bhatnagar ₹ 4,80,750/- is under the column Withdrawals and the same has been added to the income of the assessee. Similar debit entries which have been added by the Assessing Officer are : 09.10.2007 ₹ 19,250/- 08.10.2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f found correct, only the net receipts [i.e. unaccounted income minus unaccounted expenditure] should be added to the income of the assessee. 15. Another contention of the ld. AR is that the assessee has been receiving on money from the sale of flats but the same should be taxed in the respective A.Ys in which the sale deeds have been executed as per the method of accounting followed by the assessee. 16. We do not find much force in this contention of the ld. AR. The unaccounted receipts or the on money is the income of the assessee in the year in which it has been received and has been rightly taxed as such by the Assessing Officer. 17. To sum up, the on money received by the assessee is the unaccounted income of the assessee as per the notings in the diary [bank pass book] and loose sheet subject to verification of duplicate entries, arithmetical error in totalling and the amount transferred to the Head office being debit entries, wrongly added as income of the assessee. With the above directions, the common ground relating to addition on account of unaccounted cash receipts is allowed for statistical purposes. 18. As a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . {supra) was followed, there is no substantial question of law that requires consideration. 4. The appeal is therefore dismissed. 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP of the Revenue in SLP Civil Diary No. 2755 of 2019 order dated 08.02.2019 and the order reads as under: 1. Delay condoned. 2. In view of the decision of this Court in CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. Through its Manager [2018] 3 SCC 253, we see no reason to entertain this special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 24. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd is dated 12.02.2018 whereas the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Oil Industry Development Board [supra] is dated 16.02.2018. As the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi [supra] is directly on the point, we decline to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). The common ground raised in both the appeals is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 006622 21.11.2008 2,00,00,000 TOTAL 8,00,00,000 27. The Assessing Officer called for necessary details from the assessee to establish the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee filed detailed reply dated 26.03.203 and the same reads as under: The assessee company is engaged in real estate development and received booking against its projects. The assessee company received amount from the companies against booking of various project in the normal course of business. The assessee company has not taken any accommodation entries from the said companies. It is further submitted that the booking of the said companies were subsequently cancelled on specific request from the respective buyers companies. Since, the amount received on booking subsequently refunded to them ,so the assessee company has not received any benefit of accommodation entry as no amount has been introduced in the books of the assessee in the form of share capital, share application, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the authorities below and have carefully considered the judicial decisions relied upon. At the outset, we have to say that the Assessing Officer has not considered the transaction in true perspective and simply relied upon the report of the Inv Wing, New Delhi. The facts show that the transaction of ₹ 8 crores is not that of loan simpliciter. It is a business transaction and should have been considered from that angle. 34. The companies, namely Virgin Capital Services Pvt Ltd, VIP Leasing and Finance Pvt Ltd and Humtum Marketing Pvt Ltd have tendered money for booking flats in the projects of the assessee company. It appears that the Assessing Officer has not examined the transaction of booking flats by these companies. It also appears that after booking the flats in the projects of the assessee company, bookings were cancelled and subsequently, the money was refunded to these companies. Though the first appellate authority has deleted the addition but at the same time, he has also not gone into the details of booking of flats and subsequent cancellation. In our considered opinion, the impugned transaction has to be looked upon not from the an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... summons u/s 131 could not be served upon him. 41. The assessee was asked to explain the transactions appearing in the impounded documents and reconcile the same with its books of account. On receiving no plausible reply, addition of ₹ 1,84,82,000/- was made. 42. There was one more impounded document in respect of a property and measuring 647.50 sq yard which was purchased for a total consideration of ₹ 1.07 crores. The share holders of this plot were Shri Jagjit, Shri Titu, Shri Akash, Shri Rakesh Pankaj and Shri Pawan. The assessee was asked to explain the transactions noted in the impounded documents and reconcile the same with its books of account. On receiving no plausible reply, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 48,69,900/-. 43. The assessee strongly agitated the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and pointed out that during the survey proceedings itself, Shri Vinod Kumar Chauhan in his statement, has clearly stated that these impounded documents belonged to Shri Azad Singh and in respect of another property, it was brought to the notice of the ld. CIT(A) that in the impounded sheet itself, names o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
